COILED TUBING
Sidetracking Technology for
Coiled=Tubing Drilling
L.J. I.eisina. SPE, Schlumbemer Dowell; D.D. Heam, SPE, Arco Alaska Inc.; E.A. Rike, SPE, and D.M. Doremus,”
Schlumb&~ger Dowell; and>.R. Paslay, Techaid Corp.
Summary
Coiled-tubing (CT) drilling is a rapidly growing new technology that
has km used for shallow new wells and re-entry applications.
Through-tubing drillinghas evolved as a major applicationforCT driU-
. . . ,.L,,-_ ---- --l -. # - .,:.-,h2- h-.,”h-h,hin
ing. 11’teremammg Key eiidonng uhumlogy 101 v Iw.u Luuu=,- . . . . ..g
MIing is the ability to sidetrack in casing below the tubing tail. ‘Iltis
paper describes the thee. technologies developed for sidetracking and
presents a mathematical model of forces, penetration mtes, and totques
for window milling with the cement-sidehacking (CS) technique. Wi-
ndowmilling has been a “seat of the pants” operation in the past. To our
knowledge, this is the fmt published work on the mechanics of window
milling. The results from several yard tests and one field test are pres-
ented and show some of the problems associated with sidetracking.
Introduction
When faced with a production problem in the past, an operator had
no drilling options unless the tubing was pulled and a conventional
reentry well was drilled through production casing.1 Whiie thk is
done at a reasonable cost on most land operations, rig-mobilization
costs offshore (and under Arctic conditions) dictate that only wells
with the highest ~tential can justify this type of expensive re-entry.
In areas of high rig-mobilization costs, a rigless through-tubing re-
entry can save 50% or more of the cost of a conventional rc-entty.
Whh the advent of CT drilling, the option of through-tubing drill-
ing has become a reality. The motivation for this is low-cost rigless2
re-ent~ when overbalanced and safe drilling with Christmas tree
and tubing in place when underbalanced.3 Averaged over the last 4
years, the number of wells directionally drilled with CThas doubled
each year from three wells in 1991 to more than 50 in 1995 (Fig. 1).
The lower cost of mobilization of a CT unit vs. a rotary rig provides
additional economic incentive. In addition, the ease of drilling
4%-in. and smaller boreholes with CT is an advantage in regions
where slim-hole drilling is not an established practice. Now, when
faced with a production problem, an operator has three through-tub-
ing sidetracking options: CS, whipstock in cement (WC), and
through-tubing whipstock (TIW).
CS. This technique is the most straightforward. It involves placing
a specially designed cement plug in the casing and directionally
drilling with a bent-housing motor to cut the window and lateral
(Fig. 2a). Time drilling (increasing depth by small increments at
specified time increments) is used to start the window.
Fibers are often added to sidetrack cement because, although they
may decrease the compressive strength, they bind fragments togeth-
.=. *L.,
cl, -.=~..fi~mth=.
,,,”s ,Quuelllg ...= framlltinu ~ problem. Latex
fraurn.~ntation
... . .. . .... -aryi- --
may also be used to improve ductility even though it may also re-
duce the compressive strength,
The advantages of this technique include no iron left in the well
and few opportunities for something mechanical to malfunction
(Table 1). If the existing wellbore must be plugged and abandoned,
the cement kickoff plug may be effectively free, making this the
most economical technique.
“Nowwiih Sedw Forex.
Copyright1996 %oiety of PetroiaurnEnginaara
19,7SS6,Paperpaer~prwad Feb.20, 1SS6,PaPar(SPE304SS)fim preaekd etthe1S95
SPE AnnualTacWcal Conlerancaand ExhMin baldin Dahaa,Oct. 2S-25,
414
30$%Z9
The disadvantages are short windows, technique sensitivity, and
the relatively fragile cement ramp. Because the whipstock is cement,
all subsequent operations through the window must be made careful-
ly and preferably without rotation. In addition, dressing of CS win-
dows with watermelon mills has been less than successful. In spite of
these disadvantages,thistechniqueis the mostpopuiar,pmtiiiiiy be-
cause of the importance of its advantages. The technique has been
tried commercially 16 times as of July 1995 and has been used suc-
cessfully for 33/&and 4]/z-in. hole sidetracks in both 7- and 9sls-in.
casing and at deviations from 11to 90”. Arco has a 70% success rate
with nine successful cement sidetracks from 13 tries in 10 wells.
Three of the four failed sidetracks were in the first two wells.
‘ho techniques have heen used to initiate cement sidetracks. If
the pilot hole and the exit are on the same side of the casing, it will
be
zfl@@\~:.-
caiied a CS same side \G-0~. :. th~ -~th,+ . .
~lJI_1=,lIU,.J-M.- ,,C~ f~~ ~!! ~h$
yard testing, for the modeling work detailed here, and in the case his-
tory presented later. Fig. 2a illustrates the CSS technique. If the pilot
hole is on one side of the casing and the bottomhole assembly
(BHA) is oriented to drill toward the opposite side of the casing, the
technique is called CS opposite sides (CSO). The CSS technique has
the advantage of direct application of full BHA elastic load at a
known depth. The advantages of the CSO technique are that the mill
hits the casing with an angle of attack, the mill is required to cut less
casing, and the cement is much thicker at the top of the window.
WIC. This technique is slightly more complicated than the CS tech-
nique. The casing is filled with cement and a through-tubing direc-
tional assembly is used to drill a hole to the inside of the casing at
the proper tool-face angle. Enough straight hole is drilled adjacent
to the casing to make a straight rathole for the whipstock (Fig. 2b).
A hole deviation of >10” maybe required for stable tool-face
readings while drilling (thk applies to the CS technique also). A bot-
tom-trip whipstock is run in with a BHA made up of whipstock,
starter mill, steering tool, and orienting-tool CT.
The whipstock is oriented by use of gravity tool face from the
steering tool and a previous gyro survey. The orienting tool is actu-
ated until the tool face is within 15” of desired angle. If a bottom-trip
whipstock is used, the weight is set on the whipstock to actuate the
anchor slips. Addhional weight is then applied to break the shear pin
on the starter mill, and milling of the window progresses in a manner
similar to the conventional window-milling operations.
TTW. Several versions of TT’W exist; some are permanent and
some are retrievable. All consist of an michor that reacts torsional
and axial loads and are designed to allow the small through-tubing
diameter to span from the high to the low side of the much larger cas-
ing inside diameter (Fig. 2c). Currently, all TTW are normally used
for a near-high-side exit to allow gravity to force the upper whip-
stock taper to lay against the low side of the casing.
The whipstock and anchor cart he in one assembly, in which case
the whipstock can be oriented by use of a swivel that allows the ec-
centric mass of the whlpstock to orient with gravity. Once the sur-
face readout indicates proper tool face, the whipstock can he set with
a wireline setting tool.
If the whipstock is separate from the anchor, the operational pro-
cedure is as follows: (1) set anchor on wireline or CT (2) run survey
tool (gyro if vertical) to determine orientation of muleshoe on an-
chou (3) adjust indexing spline on whipstock so that whipstock will
have proper tool-face orientation when stung into muleshoe of an-
cho~ (4) run in hole with whlpstock and set down weight to latch
May 1996 JPT ●
 TABLE 1-COMPARISON OF SIDETRACKING TECHNIQUES

— Cs —Wlc — Trw
Estimatedprobababilityof 65 to 85 85 65 to 85
success,70
~igh ~* ~xfi yes yes yes
Lowside exit Yes Yes —
Easy removal Yes — Possible
Multilateraiswithflowfrom all Possible Possible Yes
window length Short Long Long
Whipstnckintragrity Poor Good Moderate
Ironin well No Yes Yes
Orientadwithc3° hole No No Possible
4V2-in.tubingwith7-in. casing Yes Yes Yes
4V2-in.tubingwith9V8-in. Yes Yes Possible
caaing
Fig. l-Diraetional CT drilling job count.

onto anchor and set whipstock, (5) release CT from whipstock (usu-
ally with tensile pull); (6) run in hole with downhole mo~orand stsrt-
er mill and drill specified amoun~ and (7) run in hole with downhole
motor and diamond speed mill to complete milling of window.
CS hal@Oal Model
The procedure considered here is the CSS. The motor bent-housing
bend angle in the BHA causes the hole to interfere with the milling
assembly so that a lateral force develops at the bit. This lateral force,
FL, is what causes the blt to start milling the casing. Angular position
(tool face) is adjusted to keep the radial milling force acting outward
on the casing at the desired window azimuth. Normally, a constant-
time drilling rate of penetration (ROP), VA,is usedto initiate thewin-
dow. A maximum weight on bit (WOB) maybe reached as the win-
~ww km .+lla,i
.Ul,,bu.
Mill; nm
.. . . . . . ~ mrxwwes
.Jp,~,! $~,~ p=Qp ; rm.-a.,ac
‘.,-’*
significantly and quicld y, indicating that the milling bit has come
out of the casing. It is well known that wear data have sizable scatter,
so the model can be expected to be useful for estimating trends. Ref.
4 contains a more detailed discussion of sidetracking and detailed
analytical appendices.
Lateral Force Caused by Bent Housing. The first element in the
model is to predict the lateral force on the bit, which is caused by
partially (and elastically) straightening the BHA. For a near-vertical
well, the inward radial elastic deflection at the bh is related to the
inward lateral force, FL, at the bit by4
in Eq. 1, must be included in the force balance. The usual, simple
wew-iaw is appiied here and can ‘bewritten as
Q= CFV, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)
where Q= time rate of volume removal by wear between sliding
surfaces, C= experimentally measured wear coefficient, F= force
pressing slidlng surfaces together, and V= relative velocity of slid-
ing between the surfaces. TMs wear relation is assumed to exist be-
tween the bit and the casing as well as between the bit and the cement
(with drastically different values for the wear constant).
The axis of the bit is assumed to be parallel to the casing axis in
the model. The slight tilt of the bit axis is not expected to be impor-
tant for the desired estimates. The analysis considers two geometri-
cally distinct regions. In the first region, the milling bit is in contact
0“0
with the casing but has not completely penetrated it (~lg. 3). In the
second region, the milling bh ii in contact with the casing and has
penetited the outside surface of the casing.
Ref. 4 gives the force equilibrium equations for the milling bit
with the associated friction and wear equations. ‘Ihble 2 lists the pa-
rameters that must be specified to solve a particular case with the
computer program model input variables. Note that the axial and lat-
eral bit ROP’s are specified as inputs because it is much easier math-
ematically to specify the velocity and calculate the resultant bit pres-
sure dktribution.
DEL is the bit intrusion into the casing measured from the mean
casing rsdlus (Fig. 3). From Fig. 3, we can deduce that initially the
milling force on the bit is directed inward and counterclockwise, but

~=%+m=
(1)
From Eq. 1, we can see that the most impxtant characteristics of
a motor for sidetracking are its OD (larger moment of inertia), bend-
to-blt-face distance, annular clearance, and deflection.
once past high center (DEL= ~) itswitches to outward and clock-
wise. The BHA considered in Ref. 4 cannot oppose this force (with-
out excessive deflection). This mathematical problem reflects the
physical rerdity that the bent-housing motor cannot generate both a
radial force to start the window and prevent the blt from jumping out
at the bottom of the window.

BMWear and Force/Moment Equilibrium Model. The bit is taken Application of Analytical Model. The purpose of this section is to
asa free body in this model, and the usual force and moment equilib- show how the model can be used to predct the bh behavior for the
rium equations are applied to the free body. The force FL, appearing early phase of milling. Input data are chosen to simulate the CSS

..

Cmmi

Fig. 2-Sohamatica of aidetmcklng optione.

416 Mcry W96CJPT

 2d

g 2.4 -

;~
8
1.6

I .2
1
0.s
.h
!
0.4

00
0 mo 400 Soo em low
Ut
Bltiatsrdfcsrcar, )(lilrl

Fig. 4-Eiaatic maponaa of bif/BHA.

In -
Fig. 3-Schematic of miiiing-anaiyais modai.
g: -

iGas
U : vA-a12aM(UmsAv.)
TABLE 2-MODEL PARAMETERS

m-
Model inputvariabies C, Ce, ~, h, ~, ~, N, rB,b,
r~M, v,, vL,P, P~,#/
Model outputvariables &l, FA,FL, T VR,y, @

yard tests. For the BHA bending calculation, the pertinent parame-
I
“w
I
al -
—d
——
t

41 -
ters are L.l= 50.00 in., E= 30 x 106 psi, D = 3.87~in., d= 2:875 in., i 1 ii i
a
0 10 a 20 a m
and I= 1.956 in.4. These data correspond to a steel BHA with a
2.875-in. OD and a 2.3 l-in. ID. lmmm
The lateral elastic force on the milling bit is approximately 500
Ibf (measured statically) when milling starts. Fig. 4 shows that the
corresponding eiastic deflection of the bit is 1.6 in. at 500 lbf. For Fig. 5-Bit intrusion aa a function of time.
the milling analysis the input data were rc = 3.296 in.;
C= O.25X 10-7 psi- 1; h =0.408 in.; p =0.2; ~ = 1.875 in.;
Ci=0.75 X10-5 psi-]; & = 1.5 in.; ~i = 0.2; N= 400 rev/rein; 0,13 ~
C,=0.75 X10-5 psi-l; &q= 100 ft; k ‘0.2; rMo&l= 2.0 in.; 0.12
vA= 0.125 in./min if WOB <3,000 Ibf, otherwise WOB = 3,000 lbfi ~ all
and v~ is adjusted for each DEL to match bit elastic force and deflec- 0.10
tion with milling model. {
F%. 5 shows that the region – 0.18< DEL<0.925 is milled in b=
about 50 minutes. The curve sLsoshows the expected result that vR
increases after DEL reaches =0.2, which is where the bit reaches the
casing OD. Fig. 6 shows the value of VA as a function of DEL, which
prevents FA from exceeding 3,000 Ibf. Because of numerical prob-
lems, the model does not give accurate results for DEL >0.925 in.;
therefore we used a simplification. The hole below DEL> 0.925
drilled in Yard Test 2 is very close to straight. Thus, Figs. 7 and 8
were determined with an inclined advance of 3” for DEL >0.925 in.
A constant ROP of 0.625 ft/hr was assumed when the WOB was ~2 0.2 0.4 10 1A 1A 2.2 2A
. . . . . .. . . . -----
< wuu IDI. tvg. 7 shows the wukt vs. axiai bit position and illus- atwhtoedrg~b]
trates the limitation in WOB. In many actual milling cases, the WOB
will not decrease as shown in Fig. 7 (for axial position> 35 in.) be-
cause, at the surface, there is no way to know whether the downhole Fig. 8-ROP vs. bit intrusion with WOB iimited to 3,000 ibf.
ROP has increased. Fig. 8 shows the cuttings production rate as a
function of bit axial position. The slow deciine from peak in this with latex for the remainder of the tests. The targets were cured at
curve shows why it is useful. an elevated temperature (175” F). Large casin~ was eccentered
around the 7-in. casing, and the srmulus between the casings was
Yard Testing filled with cement/aggregate (Test 1) and neat eight-sack Portland
This section outlines the yard tests conducted to develop the side- cement (all other tests).
tracking technique. ‘lhble 3 shows the results of five sidetracking We achieved good hole cleaning during the tests clear water. Jor-
yard tests. The first test was done at a 53” deviation to test the feasi- dan et al.s nqwrt that =70% of the metal cuttings generated in a
bility of a low-side exit. All others were drilled from vertical. FM. rotary section milling operation are returned to the surface, but dia-
9 shows the bits used in these tests. mond mills on downhole motors run at higher speed with low WOB
For all yard tests presented, we made up a target with a 40-ft joint and produce much finer cuttings. Collecting metal returns with a
of 7-in., 29-lbflft casing. The target was cemented with downhole- ditch magnet and using the accurate depth measurement possible
quaiity fiber cement. We used two types of cement: a 6,000-psi with surface testing was very effective for monitoring the miiling
Ciass A cement for Tests 1 and 2 and a 3,500-psi Class G cement process. The 3.75-in. mills produced =0.43 lbsrdin. when centered

JP2’0MoY 1996 417

 *
0.46
- 0.44

t! Oa

i:

1- 0.15
als

L
S60
1 I I 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 ~ o.m
o
0610 1s20s6s s 46466066a
AYalpmlsonorblr(h) I
Fig. 7—WOB VS.blt position. Fig. 8-Cutting production rate vs. bit position.

on the wall of the test casing. This full-cut value can be estimated
for a steel casing of wall thi&ness h by
kf=2(h)(r~)(0.283 )lbm/in., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(3)
where M= magnetic cuttings weight per inch milled.
=:--
rmc —-.-1
IIIGW
-... ------------
cuumgs
-... ”.. .p,uuwiIh
IAU baux
..-l.la -:- U. =-14
,IGW J.-.-k-.-c
“wIatiU,,=.
mulations in blowout-preventer cavities have been a problem. Also,
fine particles can be dlfflcult to remove from viscosified fluids.
These particles can become embedded in the rubber stators end soft
bearing material of downhole motors and significantly reduce their
operating life. For that reason, appropriate solids-control measures
are essential to a successful operation.
CSS Yard Tksts. The CSS method was developed during YaKITests
I through 3 and 5. Irr YardTest 1, a 1.5° bent sub was used. Previous
tests yielded 30- to 404n.-long windows with 3“ bent housings and
1.5” bent subs, and we theorized that a less aggressive BHA would
yield a longer window.On reaching the kickoff point we initiatedTime
Drilling Sequence A (IhbIe 4). The BHA became stuck (because a
large chunk of cement sheath left on the casing wrdl fmm a previous
undeneanter run bruke ofl) and required BHA rotation to fme it. From
this tes~ we determined that the 1.5” bent housing with a 0.75” bent
sub could penetrate the casing but was not aggressive enough to hold
a lip with minimal WOB (600 lbf).
In Yard Test 2, we used a more aggressive BHA with a short-
gauge (sIs-in.) diamond mill. Time Drilling SequenceB (Table 4)
was initiated when the kickoff point was reached. After 8.7 in. had
been drilled, the lip held 700 lbf of WOB. Wkh 1,800 to 3,000 lbf
of WOB, the ROP was 0.5 to 1 ft/hr for almost the entire milling.
After 51.3 in. of milling (from the kickoff point), the motor stalled
three times while drilling at 2,600 lbf of WOB. The WOB was re-
duced to 1,800 lbf, and the motor stalled two more times. At 59 in.
below the kickoff point, we observed a drilling break of 3 in. when
the lip jumped out at the bottom of the window. llvo very large
(1x 3.5 x 0.02-in. -thick) metal cuttings were circulated to surface
.W,.UL,.Wa:ei m:. +.,..= WI
11113 Lyp
,.C ~unc,,,uUU~~,==1
-a ... ... ... -*.=1 ..1.
-U,u,,=
*:...-.
,S W,,,wu,..w.
k .-bm-fk’i-.
formed in front of the dkunond bit on a free surface and grows as
milling progresses. Normal cuttings are of the 0.01-to 0.02-in. size
with a diamond mill. Fig. 10 shows the window cut (sectioned) on
this test. The window opening measures =40 in, long. No attempt
was made to dress the window.
The remsinderof the yard testing was done in a vertical weU.In Yad
A,.,.,,.
~w..U– Test 3, a less agggssive motor bent-housing angle (2.6”) was used in
an attempt to get a longer window. We tried time drilling with 0.5 Whr
in l-in. advance increments (too coame at only 50 ti depth) for 12 in.
and made no lip. We increawd the motor bent-housing angle to 30 and
started drilling at a constant ROP to see if we could make a lip in this
manner. A& drilling 3 tl at 1.25 to 2.5 ft/hr, we observed no lip or
weight increase and thus &term&d thatan ROPofmore than 1.25iV
hr was too fast to initiate a window under these conditions.
For Yard Test 5, Time Drilling Sequence C (Table 4) was used
with a long-gauge diamond mill to initiate the window. After drill-
ing 22.2 in. from the kickoff point, we found that the lip would hold
string weight. At 27.6 in. below the kickoff point, cuttings were 0.47
lbmlin. and the mill radius was worn smooth and had five cracked/
missing dhrnonds. The remainder of the window was milled with
a 2.12” bent-housing motor for a total window length of 49 in.
Dressing this window was attempted with a BHA made up of a dia-
mond mill, watermelon mill, 5-ft flex joint, and motor at 0°. ‘Ilk ss-
sembly sidetracked down the ‘7-in.casing and ruined the window.
Following this test, we conducted snother yard test and made -..
another 43-in. window, which we tried dressing with a BHA made
up of a bullnose, 5-ft flex joint, watermelon tili, and motor at 0“.
After four wiper trips with this assembly, the BHA still would hang
up when running in hole. Six more bit trips were made with various
combinations of the above and a diamond mill. Despite extreme pre-
cautions to prevent rotation of the bit in the window, this hole was
also sidetracked down the 7-in. casing.
WIC Yard H Yard Test 4 was done according the WIC procedure
previously described and with the target used in Yard Test 3 because
the kickoff point would be about 20 ft above the bottom of the hole.
(A kkkdf POi!ll2!) !? Off-bOttCW diQwSrnll!d~ieW& Mdhthe CS
technique and then use of a WIC backup if the CS is unsuccessful.)

TABLE 3-SIDETRACKING YARD TEST SUMMARY

Yard-TestNumber
1 2 3 4 5
Testtype Css Css Css Wlc Css
Windowlength,in. — 42 92 49
e+, ..4, ;, ,-r,n,+ tin ~y~~., !~d~~~ &’@j~ !~ y! Good !Qng
Conmirrts oLutin, ,“, , +#U” ,,p Skk!mk when
weight on lip window attemptedto dress
Results Bend notenough Good Poor Good Goodlbad
Bent housing,degrees 1.5 3 2.6/3’ 3/2.12’
Bent sub, degrees 0.75 — 1/0 — —
Deviation,degrees 53 53 0 0 0
Exit side Low Low
CSStds runwilh7-in.,2S-lbnVllcssing.
%dicstes Iwo funs RunI/Run 2.

418 May 1996*JPT

 Fig. 9-Bits uaatt in sidetracking yard taata.

TABLE 4-TIME DRILLING

Rate of Time
Depth Increment Advance Increment
Sequence (in.) (ft/hr) (minutes)
A 3 1.25 12
3 0.62 24
5 0.42 60
0 o* 30
B 3 1.25 12
3 0.62 24
4 0.42 48
0 o* 30
c 3 0.62 24
18 0.33 270
“Wtibrakelocked,

The hole was then reamed with a flex double-watermelon mill. A flex
joint was run above the motor. We were very concerned that the hole
would be too large for the slips (setting in cement but designed to set
on casing) and would not hold however, we later found that the slips
had a very good bite. The 12-tt, taper-face-length, bottom-trip,
3%-in.-OD whipstock was run in on a starter mill, oriented with the
face toward the casing, and weight was applied to shear the bottom
trip. We then started drilling with a straight motor and the starter mill.
A ft~,. Ai.illimcQ in at 1 Q ft/hr with 6(I lhf-ft nf (ornm? Wi? pu!!I?d Chc
. . . . . -......5 “ . . . . . . ..” . . .. . . . . . -v .-. .. . . ~--, ..-

BHA out and added a flex joint between the motor and the diamond
mill bwause of stalls. After eight stalls while drilling 4 in. with 600
lbf of WOB and 75 lbf-ft of torque, the ROP averaged only 0.3 Whr.
We found that ciutide cutters on the starter mill were broken and re-
dressed the mill with Cut-rite, covering much more of the mill cir-
cumference with cutting material for a smoother drilling torque.
After drilling 7.5 in. at 1.1 fthr with 50 to 80 Ibf-ft of torque, the
motor pressure increased when weight was applied. The lug had
been milled off after drilling a net of 17 in. from the initial starter
mill tag. An oriented “0.8”bent-housing motor with a diamond mill
was rotated in hole and drilled 14 in. at 70 to 80 lbf-ft of torque, The
ROP was initially 0.75 ft/hr but decreased to 0.3 ft/hr. The bit was
both cutting the whipstock and casing.
To lift the bit out of the whipstock, we used a 1.80 motor to time
dill off-bottom. This assembly also drilled 3.5 in. of new window
before the ROP dramatically decreased and the motor pressure
started to increase. We found that the diamond mill crown had
“ringed out,” or that all the diamonds and matrix were gone from the
outer radius. Cuttings were 0.44 Ibmh. Video inspection showed
an I/s-in. lip in the whipstock and a %-in. lip in the casing and that Fig. 10-Camant aidatrackphotofrom YardTaat2.
the top of the whipstock was Y4 in. off the casing wall.
We gradually applied weight to a new dhrnond mill on the motor twice. Fw. 11 shows the sectioned target. ‘he window length is 92 in.,
just &scribed and drilled 27.6 in. at 0.2 to 0.3 ft/hr before the bit which is the longest window made during thk yard-testing series.
stopped cutting into the whipstock. After drilling another 14.4 in. at
1 ft/hr, the motor angle was changed to 0.4”. The bit (which had
Analytical Modal Validation and Uaa
drilled only 3.5 ft) had 39 missing or severely damaged diamonds and
was rko changed. Cuttings were 0.86 Ibm/in. Note that this is twice We determined the cement-wear coeftlcient by drilling cement with
the calculated vaiue for casing tiliing and reflects the fact that ‘tie bit o~ A;..nn.,-r ;11~..u
“Ia,,lvllu m... --,-I ...W-L....6 the
inamc irimu
--- RnP
..- . . The rminu.wr.ar
. ...----..= ----- rru=fflcient
-------------
was milling both the casing and the whipstock. Another 24 in. was was obtained from window-milling tests by measuring the WOB
drilled at 1.25 IVhrwith 80 lbf-ft of torque. The window was married and ROP and adjusting the casing-wear coefficient to match the

JFI’*May 1996 419

 .

Fig. 12--Phototweph of esslng window from yerd testing (blietsr

AL.. -s . ..1-J-... 1: -t ● -.. -c iil.m&.i
ul &up u] Wml]uuw o= ab w+ WI p Uwawp

signed to ratchet 30” each time pump is cycled off and on; ball-drop-
actuated circulation sub; ball-drop-actuated emergency release sub;
flapper-type dual check valves (to pass the balls); and CT connector.
Both the pilot hole and window were cut on the low side of the
hole. We used the following procedure to mill the window.
1. Tripped in the hole with tubing-tail locator and flagged the CT.
With a 3.75-in. diameter motor with a 10 bent housing, ran in the
.-—-: -:_- DW
Iclluullulg Dnfl
A --.4
mm I-II UIGU UK luw-atuG plut
.4211-A
llUIG &u WIUUU
.L-
J lb u.
1. . . . .:.4- -:1,.+ I.,.l,s .,. ..,:+k; . ‘1 ~, -f

the planned window top.

2. Whh the 3.75-in., short-gauge diamond window mill, ran in a
‘1 Q7< ;.. .4:. . ..-.-. ...-+-. 1 <0 hant
..,MI
~.” , J-,,,, -ll,cal,,G.c, ,,,”.”, W,u, a J m,,. ,,v”.,1.~ -lIU 1.-J c,,h
o
-..$ -“”. 2“ Isnmt h,m,.cimm cmwl

Fig. 11—Whipstock in cement photo from Yerd Test 4.
measured ROP. The coeftlcient of friction was statically measured.
These are the only nonobvious inputs to the model. -
All the results from the model agree reasonably well with yard-
testing observations. The theoretical time required to mill a 3° in-
cline advance window with a maximum of 3,000 lbf of WOB is 10
hours. This compares well with actual observations from yard tests.
At an ROP of 0.625 ftihr, the torque calculated from the model
near high center is 53 lbf-ft for radial penetration rates, vR,of 0.01
to 0.02 in./min. This compares very well with the 62 lbf-ft measured
on Yard Test 5.
Cuttings production normalized by depth drilled is approximate-
ly 0.43 lbrn/in. (near high center) from Eq. 3. The exact value from
the model is 0.465 lbrnhn. (Fig. 8). ‘Ilk agrees very well with the
measured production rate of 0.44 to 0.47 lbrn/in. during normal
near-high-center window milling.
CSS CasISHistory
This case history is Arco’s frrst CT-drilled sidetrack through casing.
The objective was to drill a replacement wellbore on the low side
‘through the casing below the 4%-in. tubing tail. In general, all drill-
ing operations used directional control with a BHA made up of the
following: appropriate mill orbit and bent motorhent sub nonmag-
netic collars and keyed sub carrying a mud-pulse-telemetry mea-
surement-while-drilling tool; nonrotating joint to make the final
connection because the CT cannot be rotated, orienting tool de-
Oriented the td face to the low side and drilled 2 ft with approxi-
mately 2,000 lbf WOB to establish a stable cutting pattern. Time
driUedat 1ft/hr for 1ft to begin the cut in the casing wall (by marking
O.l-ft increments on the tubing and locking the brake at each incre-
ment for 6 minutes). Loeked the brake at the planned window top for
90 minutes. Then, time drilled the window at 1 fthu for an addhional
2 ft to get the mill farther into the casing wall. Began milling with
weight at this point. An ROP of <2 ftihr with 3,000 to 5,000 lbf WOB
verified that the mill was cutting casing. Drilling became rough after
milling what appeared to be 7 ft of window on the depth indlcaton
tripped the mill out and inspected. Dkunond wear on the mill face in-
dicated that the bit center had cut to the casing wall.
3. Whh a 3.75-in. -diameter, l-in. -gauge diamond window mill,
ran in a 2.875-in.dkwneter motor with a 2“ bent housing and no bent
sub and the remainder of the BHA. Time drilled thk mill through the
existing window at 2 ft/hr. Continued milling with 3,000 to 5,000 lbf
WOB after tagging bottom. ROP increased after milling approxi-
mately 2 ft, indicating that the mill had cut through the casing wall,
completing the window.
4. Drilled an additional 10 ft for a directional survey in the win-
dow. After the directional survey, circulated the well clean with fil-
tered seawater for a camera run.
5. Drilleda312-ft sidetrack underbalanced through this window
with one polycrystalline-diamond-compact bit run on a 10 bent mo-
tor and steered to drop angle from 50” at the sidetrack down to 16”
at total depth. Average ROP was 27 ftihr with 3,000 lbf WOB.
The video log showed that the window was only 5 ft long with a
small jog clockwise (similar to Fig. 12) where the mill centerline

420 May 1996*JPT

~~osse~ the casing mean diameter (high center) <1 ft from the bot- VR = true radial ROP of bh into casing, L/t, in./min
mm ot the wmdow. The discrepancy in window length points up a d= bit lateral elastic deflection, L, in.
problem with depth measurement caused by apparent length change y= instantaneous bit velocity direction relative to 0,
of the CT from WOB changes.
degree
P = casing/bit friction coefficient
Conclusions
Pe = extemal-cementhit friction coefficient
1. CS leads other methods in number of field applications. The
pi= inside-cementilt friction coeftlcient
economics of this operation are particularly attractive in wells
where a required cement plugback can serve as a kickoff plug. e= windup caused by twist of string above bit (often
2. CS windows are relatively short and cannot be lengthened by called reactive torque angle), degree
simply reducing the angle of the bent-motor housing and bent sub.
3. Time drilling is essential to successful CS operations. f3 units References
are not weii suited for the siow rates needed, so ioc’kktg‘he %lke
1. Bmck, K.A. and Cagle, W.S.: “New TechnologyEconomicallySide-
at specific depth intervals is required.
4. Dressing CS windows has been a problem area, but tools and tracksCasedWellBores; Pet. Eng. Ml. ‘(May1992)51.
procedures continue to evolve. 2. Newman,K.R. and Doremus,D.M.: “HybridCoiled Tubing/Snubbing
5. The WIC operation is the closest to conventional sidetrack op- DrillingandCompletionSystem”paperSPE28300presented at the 1994
erations because the whipstock is contained in a near-gauge hole; SPE AnnualTechnicalConferenceand Exhibition,New Orleans, LA,
therefore, a high success rate is expected even though this method Sept. 23-26.
has not yet been applied in the field. 3. LAsing, L.J. and Rlke, E.A.: “Underhalanced Drilling WithCoiledTub-
6. TTW’s are best suited for wells where existing production must ing and WellPmductivityypaperSPE 28870presented at the 1994SPE
be maintained. Because the whipstock must pass through the pro- EuropeanPetroleumConference, London,Oct.25-27.
duction tubing, there is clearance to produce from below even when 4. Leking, L.J. et al.: “SidetrackingTechnology for Coiled Tubing Drill-
it is anchored in the casing. Most TTW systems are relatively expen- ing,”paperSPE 30486 presented at the 1995 SPEAnnualTechnicalCon-
sive; the exception is the simple system run on electric line. The eco- ferenceand Exhibition, Dallas, Oct. 22-25.
nomics of the more complicated systems is attractive when they can 5. Jordan, T. et al.: “Tips For a Successful Re-Entry,” supplement, Pet. Eng.
be retrieved and rerun. Ml. (March 1994) 66, No. 3,8.
~. The a~aiuci.
= “... nf
-. thp .... . .. .... . of lhc ~~iiin~ ~rweSS preSeftkd
-.- mec~anim
is thought to be a reasonable balance between simplicity and utility. S1Metric Conversion Faotors
The primary value of the soitttion is to predict the tilai force, ROP,
and rate of production of metal cuttings during the milling process. ft x 3.048* E–Ol=m
8. Diamond-mill technology could be a source of improved mill life in. X2.54* E+ OO=cm
and possibly lengthen the CS windows by use of mechanics principles. lbf X 4.448222 E+OO=N
9. The repeatability of CT depth measurement needs to be im- lbf-ft X 1.355818 E+ OO=Nm
proved or the window-milling techniques must rdlow for lack of lbm x4.535 924 E–Ol=kg
&pth repeatability. psi X 6.894757 E+ OO=kPa
psi– 1x 1.450377 E–01 =kpa-]
Acknowledgments
We thank Arco Alaska Inc. and Dowell for permission to publish “camwaion
faetofis exaer.

thk paper. We also thank the many people in Engineering & Opera-
tions at Arco Alaska and Dowell who helped make through-tubing
sidetracking a success. Special thanks to Mel Hightower, Arco; Jim LotryJ. Lafsfngisan engineering specialist with Schlumberger Do-
Todd, Dowell; Britt Braddlck, Texas Iron Works; and Thurman well in Sugar Land, TX.He holdsa 8Sdegree from Purdue U, and
Carter, Weatherford for their many contributions to this technology an MS degree from Massachusetts Inst. of Technology, both in
and to Ken Brock of Tri-Tech for comments on the manuscript and mechanical engineering. Leising was a 1994-95 Distinguished
Sharon Jurek for preparing the final paper. Lecturer. Dovfd D. Haam isa staff engineer working in the Coiled
Tubing DrillingGroup of Arco Alaska Inc. in Anchorage. Heam
Nomenclature hoids a 8S degree in mechanical engineering from U, of Texas at
c= casinghit wear coefficient, Lt2/m, psi-1 Austin, He was 1995 Alaska %ctfon Engineer of the Year, Emanwl
c== extemal-cement/bh wear coefficient, Lt2/m, psi-1 A. Rike is a caibd-tubing driiling speclaiiit with Schlumberger Do-
C’i= inside-cement/bit wear coeff~cient, Lt~/m, psi-1 ,J- a—&- awgrw
weii in Anchorage. i-b hoIas ------ :- - ~-l-.. -I I VI
III @IIUNYdI
-..-;lwtnu=l-
ea.
d= BHA diameter, L, in. ing from Louisiana Tech U. Rike was the 1992 Northern Emirates
D= hole diameter, L, in. section program chairman. Denis M. Doremus is country man-
DEL= blt radial intrusion past r,, L, in. ager for Sedco Forex in Vietnam, based in Ho Chi Minh City.
E= Young’s modulus, fn/Lt2, psi From Oct. 1991 to Oct. 1995, he wd the head of Dawell Schlum-
FA= axial force on face of bit= WOB, mL/t2, lbf berger’s Coiled Tubing Drilling Group in Sugar Land, TX. Doremus

.
FL= lateral force on bit, mL/t2, lbf holds a degree in fluid mechanics from E. N.S.H. de Grenoble in
h= ~=in~-w~iithickness: L: in. FrQnce. Photograph is unavailable, P.R.Pasloy iswfth Techaid
I= moment of inertia, L4, in.4 Corp. in Houston,He has been involved in teaching and consult-
~. bit gauge length, L, in. ing since 1959, Pcrslay holds a 8S degree fbrrr Louisiana State U.,
~q = equivalent length of CT for torsional stiffness, L, ft an MS degree from Rice U., and an SCD the Massachusetts Inst.
LI = length from bend to bit face, L, in. of Technoicrgy, all in mechanical engineering.

#m
M= magnetic cuttings per milled length, trill+ lbnth.
N= bit rotation rate, rev/rein
Q. bit radius, L, in.
rc = mean casing rrdtss, L, in.
MOM = moment arm for twist, L, in.
T= external torque on bit, m/t2, Ibf-ft
“A= axiai component of tilt veiocity, ‘LA,fth
v~ = d(DEL)/dr= lateral component of bit velocity (a math- h Psslay
ematical convenience), L/t, in./min Lsialng Hasm Ruts

~ ● May 199tj 421