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

net/publication/239820079

Effective Heavy Post-Fracturing Proppant Cleanout With Coiled Tubing:

Experimental Study and Field Casing History

Article · September 2006

DOI: 10.2118/101235-MS

CITATIONS READS

10 364

3 authors, including:

Jeff Li
STran onsulting Ltd.
34 PUBLICATIONS 526 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

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

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SPE 101235
Effective Heavy Post-Fracturing Proppant Cleanout with Coiled Tubing: Experimental
Study and Field Casing History
Li J. and I. Bayfield, BJ Services Company, G. Paton, Talisman Energy (UK) Limited
Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A., 24–27 September 2006.
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
Bauxite ceramics are a high strength proppant, which is often
used for fracturing stimulation in deep and hot wells. Due to
its higher specific gravity (3.5 - 3.6), it is very challenging to
design and execute the post-fracturing proppant cleanout with
coiled tubing (CT) successfully in the highly deviated large
wellbore.
In a sand cleanout with CT the solids are moved by two
modes of transport: circulation and wiper trip, in which the
localized fluidization is caused by jet turbulence. The jetting
turbulence is produced by the down hole wash tool, and as the
CT is pulled from the hole it fluidizes and propels the solids in
the direction of the wellhead. Some of these solids may stay
in suspension and be circulated out of the well depending on
the flow velocities, hole geometry and fluid choice. The
remainder will tend to fall out of the flow channel downstream
from the wash tool. These solids will be continually
refluidised by the movement of the wash tool. The speed with
which the wash tool can be pulled out of the hole is a complex
function of the choice of fluid, flow velocities, hole geometry,
hole deviation and the physical properties of the particles.
When conditions result in complete removal of the solids, the
corresponding maximum value of the CT speed is defined as
the optimum wiper trip speed.
In this study, the solids transport test results with bauxite
in a full scale flow loop are summarized and four case
histories performed on both subsea and land wells are
presented. The engineering, implementation and challenge of
CT post-fracturing sand cleanout for each individual field case
are discussed. The paper also describes how to use a
customized down hole switchable wash nozzle and a
sophisticated solids transport computer modeling software to
optimize the post-fracturing sand cleanout process with 100 %
removal efficiency.
Introduction
Many materials have been used for the fracturing treatments
since five decades ago. Today’s most commonly used fracture
proppants include various sands, resin-coated sands,
intermediate strength ceramics and bauxite. After the fracture
treatment, some of the proppant is left behind in the well and
has to be cleaned out before the well is handed back to
production. The specific gravity of proppant could vary from
1.25 to 3.6. Therefore, it is very challenging to design and
execute the sand cleanout successfully for such a wide density
range of proppants, especially for a highly deviated wellbore.
Based on comprehensive research1-6, an effective CT sand
cleanout methodology has been developed, patented7, and
proved by the field operation8-12. The developed sand cleanout
process includes a down hole wash tool and the methodology
for CT in vertical, deviated and horizontal wells. The
preferred down hole tool includes the jetting nozzles with
switchable forward and backward facing jets. By selecting the
backward facing jets and controlling pull-out-of-hole (POOH)
speed (at rates determined by the associated particle transport
software), the settled sand bed can be “swept” out of the hole
with near 100% efficiency.
The process includes running CT into the well whilst
circulating fluids using a nozzle with a “high energy” jetting
action pointing forwards down the well to stir up the
particulate solids and allow the CT to reach a target depth or
bottom of the well (penetration stage, see Figure 1). When the
bottom or desired depth is reached, the hole can then be
cleaned either by circulating a fluid while keeping the CT
stationary (circulation stage) or by pulling the CT out of the
wellbore with continuous circulation (wiper trip stage), or by a
combination of these stages. In the wiper trip mode, a
reversing jetting nozzle with low energy is used to circulate
the fluids and to create a particle re-entrainment action to
enhance agitation of the solids and then entrain the particulates
in suspension for transport out of the wellbore while pulling
the CT out of the hole. The reverse jetting action along with a
controlled pump rate and POOH speed can produce a solids
transport action which cleans the hole completely by keeping
the solids in front (upward) of the end of the CT in continuous
agitation. The low energy nozzles have a low pressure drop
which allows for higher flow rates which results in improved
cleanout efficiency. This method and tool is more efficient
than existing methods since the process may be limited to one
pass or sweep with the option of resetting the tool for repeated
2 Li, Bayfield, Paton
cycles if problems are encountered, or it is decided to remove
a large fill volume in "bites"
In most cleanouts with low sand suspension fluids,
equilibrium beds would be formed behind the CT as the CT
and attached nozzle are run into the well. That is, the down
hole directed jet of the nozzle will disturb the exiting fill. This
disturbance will redistribute the fill while at the same time
circulate some fill back out of the hole. In many situations,
much of the redistributed fill will form “equilibrium beds”
behind the end of the CT nozzle while running in hole. By the
definition of equilibrium beds, the velocity of the fluid is
sufficiently high that no further particulate solids can settle out
and the equilibrium bed cannot grow, the remaining sand
particulates will be transported out of the hole.
During POOH, the cleanout fluid is jetted through reversed
facing nozzles. The reversed facing jets pick up the leading
edge of the equilibrium bed, disturb and entrain the leading
edge, and transport the fill up the hole past the equilibrium
beds to the surface. Since the uphole bed has reached
equilibrium state, the entrained sand particulates at the leading
end of the equilibrium beds must be transported to the surface.
The rate of pulling out of the hole should be sufficiently slow
such that the reversed facing jets can completely erode the
leading edge of the equilibrium beds as they move. Figure 1
illustrates the above discussed process.
Solids transport is affected by many variables and the
complexity of the phenomena presents challenges to the field
engineer who is trying to determine how the parameters affect
solids transport even as one or more than one, of the variables
are changing during an operation. Most of the previous solids
transport studies in the oil industry mainly focused on finding
the minimum critical velocity in the wellbore annulus for
conventional rotary drilling with mud fluids. The studies lack
information related to the prediction of the equilibrium bed’s
height during RIH, the wiper trip speed during POOH, and the
prediction of the hole-cleaning time. In the field operation,
people often use outdated “rules of thumb”, i.e., 2 hole
volumes circulation to clean well; annular velocity two times
of the sand settling velocity; taking bites of a certain length of
fill.
In our previous studies1-6, a comprehensive experimental
test of solids transport for both the stationary circulation and
the wiper trip was conducted. The effect of multi-phase flow,
rate of penetration (ROP), deviation angle, circulation fluid
properties, particle density and size, fluid rheology, pipe
eccentricity, wiper trip speed and nozzle type on solids
transport was investigated.
In this paper, the solids transport test results with bauxite
are summarized. The discussion includes the solids
distribution tests, the wiper trip tests and the fluidization tests.
Four field cases performed on both subsea and land wells are
presented. The engineering, implementation and challenge of
CT post-fracturing sand cleanout for each individual field case
are discussed.
Experimental Setup
The flow loop shown in Figure 2 was used for this project. It
was developed in a previous study1. This flow loop consists of
a 20 ft long transparent Lexan pipe with a 5 inch inner
diameter to simulate the open hole and a 1.5” inch steel inner
SPE 101235
pipe to simulate coiled tubing. The inner pipe can be
positioned on the low or the high side of the Lexan pipe for
the investigation of eccentricity effects. The loop is mounted
on a rigid guide rail and can be inclined at any angle in the
range of 0o-900 from vertical.
The sand bed height, sand volume, fluid and gas volumes
in the annulus of the test section can be measured. Based on
such information, the average in-situ velocity for each phase
can be determined.
The data collected from the instrumentation is recorded
using a computer controlled data acquisition system; see
reference 1 for more information. Recorded parameters
include flow rates, initial solids volume, final solids volume
after the CT is POOH, fluid temperature, pressure drop across
the test section, and wiper trip speed.
Solids Distribution Tests
The solids distribution tests were conducted to simulate the
penetration processes for a given deviated angle. For the solids
distribution tests, the sand slurry is circulated into the test
section for a given pump rate. After the equilibrium condition
is reached, the valves are closed simultaneously at both the
inlet and the outlet of the test section, and then the sand
volume and fluid volume in the annulus of the test section can
be measured. For different fluid rates and sand injection
concentrations in the slurry flow, the deposited equilibrium
sand bed or concentration in the tests section is different. This
would simulate the sand equilibrium concentration during the
CT running the hole with different flow rates and RIH speeds.
Figure 3 displays the transport ratio for water and 20/40
Bauxite versus the relative in-situ liquid velocity at different
deviation angles. The transport ratio is defined as the sand
concentration ratio between the injected concentration and the
deposition sand concentration in the annulus, Cinj/Cbed. A
higher value of the solids transport ratio means a greater sand
carrying capacity. Referring figure 3, for a given angle, a low
flow rate has a lower solids transport ratio and means that for
a given sand injection concentration, the sand deposition in the
annulus, Cbed, is higher at a lower flow rate. For a given in-
situ liquid velocity, the bauxite particulates transport with
water is higher at the low deviation angle. The transport ratio
near the vertical wellbore is much higher than it is at the
horizontal and the sand can be also transported with a relative
low liquid velocity near the vertical.
Figure 4 plots the in-situ sand concentration as it varies
with the run-in-hole (RIH) speed for water/bauxite at different
deviation angles with 2 bpm pump rate. The plot shows that
the sand concentration increases dramatically with increasing
the RIH speed for highly deviated wellbores (45o, 55o and 65o)
and near the horizontal. An equilibrium situation is rapidly
reached where increasing the RIH speed causes no further
increase in the sand being deposited as a sand bed in such
highly deviated wellbore. For a given RIH speed, the sand
deposit concentration is higher as the deviation angle
increases. This is consistent with the conclusion based on
figure 3.
Based on the solids distribution test results, a set of
correlations have been developed and it can be used to predict
the sand deposition concentration for a given operation
condition during CT penetration period. More importantly, the
SPE 101235 Effective Heavy Post-Fracturing Proppant Cleanout with Coiled Tubing: Experimental Study and Field Casing History
solids transport capacity can also be evaluated based on the
solids distribution test data. Therefore, the related hole clean
time can be estimated.
Wiper Trip Tests
The stationary circulation hole cleaning and wiper trip tests
were conducted by circulating the solids into the test section at
a fixed flow rate and sand injection concentration. This
process builds an initial solid concentration in the annular test
section created by the CT in the Lexan pipe. Then the solids
are cleaned out of the test section by pulling the CT out of the
test section at a preset speed while the clean fluids are
continuously circulated through the CT. If the CT is not
pulled out then the process is referred to as a stationary
circulation test.
Figure 5 displays the annular hole-volumes required to
clean the hole using water in a horizontal section of a well for
both stationary circulation mode and the wiper trip mode.
Compared with stationary circulation hole cleaning, the use of
a wiper trip produces a more efficient clean out. For example,
using water as the cleaning fluid it takes less than 7 annular
hole volumes with a wiper trip and at least 30 annular hole
volumes in stationary circulation mode to clean the horizontal
hole completely. In the wiper trip stage, the jet at the end of
CT fluidizes the stationary sand bed and transports the solids
upstream more efficiently. With stationary circulation, solids
have to be eroded from the stationary bed and rolled forward
by the fluid. Figure 5 also indicates the hole cleaning
efficiency is higher for the wiper trip given a correctly
designed nozzle and jet configuration.
There is a maximum wiper trip speed for a given pump
rate, defined as the optimum wiper trip speed, at which the
solids can be completely cleaned out of the hole. Figures 6 and
7 show the optimum wiper trip speed varies at different
deviation angles for both backward nozzle mode and forward
nozzle mode, respectively. From vertical to 55o deviation, the
increasing deviation angle results in the reduction of the
optimum wiper trip speed. For the deviation angles between
65o and 90o, the optimum wiper trip speed increases with the
deviation angle. The CT has to be pulled out of hole slower
around 55o than other deviation angles. The comparison
between figure 6 and 7 also indicates that for a given pump
rate, the CT can be POOH at a faster speed with the backward
nozzle than it is with a forward nozzle.
If the pump rate is lower than the flow rate corresponding
to the minimum liquid velocity for solids’ transport, no matter
how slow the pipe is POOH, there is always sand left behind
in the hole. Figure 9 shows how this minimum liquid velocity
changes with deviation angle requiring a maximum value
around 55o. This is because at such angles, there is no stable
sand bed formed near the bottom of the wellbore and the fill
particulates slip and slide back down near the bottom and are
re-entrained into the flow steam and move up at the top of the
flow channel.
Fluidization Tests
The fluidization tests were conducted to determine the
relationship between flow rate and in-situ solids
concentrations in the wellbore, when the flow velocity is less
than the minimum liquid erosion velocity. Initially the test
3
section was filled with a certain amount of bauxite. Water was
circulated at a flow rate which causes the solids to be fluidized
and the column height to increase by a certain amount. Based
on the initial solids column height and the final expanded
solids column height, the fluidization concentration can be
determined at the given pump flow rate. This process was
repeated for several flow rates to determine the relationship
between solids concentration and flow rate, see figure 8. When
the CT is being pulled from the hole during a wiper trip, the
solids concentrations uphole from the jetting nozzle will
increase. At some concentration the effective erosion velocity
will become sufficient to overcome the gravitational force on
the particles.
Figure 8 shows the fluidization test results for bauxite with
water at 5o to 55o from vertical. For a given liquid velocity, the
fluidization concentration increases with the increasing angle.
The minimum velocity above which some solids can be
held in suspension resulting in 100% cleanout is called the
erosion velocity. In other words, in order to completely clean
the bauxite out of the hole when the CT is stationary, i.e. only
circulation is occurring, the minimum superficial water
velocity must be above the erosion velocity. If the velocity is
less than the minimum erosion velocity, there will always be
some sands left behind in the hole regardless of the circulation
time. However, this limitation is overcome when the CT is
moving and the solids are being concentrated above the wash
tool. Figure 9 shows the principle which is discussed above.
The plot indicates that the minimum erosion velocity for the
stationary circulation is higher than the minimum liquid
velocity with a wiper trip. It is also noticed from the figure
that the solids are most tough to be transported around the
deviation angle of 55o for both the stationary circulation mode
and the wiper trip modes.
Field Case Histories
In order to simulate the solids transport along the wellbore,
solids transport computer software was developed. Empirical
formulas are applied to predict the pressure, fluid velocities
and solids transport. The simulator is a powerful analytical
tool that can characterize both the flow condition and solids
transport considering downhole conditions, and its use has
resulted in much improved and understood designed
cleanouts.
A special bi-directional jetting tool has been designed for
CT operations and is used to enhance cleanout efficiency7.
The CT is run in the hole while circulating water, gelled
liquids or multiphase fluids using nozzles with a high energy
jetting action. The jets point forwards down the well to stir up
the particulate solids and help the CT reach the target depth or
bottom of the well. When the target depth is reached, the
jetting direction of the nozzle is reversed to point toward the
wellhead. The circulating fluids now pass through a low
energy vortex nozzle; swirling flow creates a particle re-
entrainment action for transport along the wellbore as the CT
is pulled out of the hole (wiper trip).
The patented combination of a reverse jetting action, a
controlled pump rate and computed wiper trip speed can
produce a completely clean hole by keeping the solids
downstream of the jets. The low energy nozzles have a low
pressure drop which allows for higher flow rates which results
4 Li, Bayfield, Paton
in improved cleanout efficiency. This method and tool are
more efficient than existing methods since the process is likely
to be successful in one wiper trip. However, the option for
multiple switches between forward and reversed jets was
added for problem wells. Switching is achieved down hole by
controlled variation of the circulation rate.
Over 1000 successful sand cleanout jobs have been
completed world wide using the applied cleanout technology
and the bi-directional jetting tool. The jobs were designed and
optimized with the computer simulator. The details of four
sand cleanout jobs related to the post fracturing proppant
bauxite are discussed in the following section.
Case 1: Well #1 is located in the UK sector of the North Sea
and operated by Talisman Energy (UK) Limited. Prior to
fracturing from a vessel, this newly drilled well was
completed with 5.1/2" tubing down to 14,544 ft and 4.1/2"
tubing and liner down to a TD of 16, 292 ft. The well had
what was considered to be a fairly challenging deviation in
respect to solids transport, with an angle of 45° to 57° between
4,500 ft and 14,100 ft. The wellbore profile and the
completion information are shown in figure 10. Also
considered challenging was the fact that the well would be
sub-hydrostatic, meaning that the final stages of the clean-out
would likely require nitrified fluid as power fluid to enable
returns to be taken at surface. A number of preparatory coiled
tubing, wire-line runs and pumping operations were required
to obtain a suitable injection rate prior to the fracturing
operation commencing.
Historically, offshore production facilities have struggled
to handle viscosified returns through their surface production
facilities. Feasibility studies and pre-job engineering using
particle transport software assumed a worst case scenario of
proppant screened out back to near surface and planned on
removing the fill with the bi-directional jetting tool without
the assistance of any polymer to viscosify the power fluid.
Friction reduced treated seawater was selected as the power
fluid. Based on loss calculations through the assumed screened
out proppant pack, the final few hundred feet of fill would be
removed using nitrified friction reduced seawater to avoid
losses.
The well was fractured with over 100,000 lbs of 20/40 and
16/30 bauxite proppant with a specific gravity of 3.5.
Following the fracturing operation the top of proppant was
tagged with the 1.3/4" coiled tubing at 14,441 ft, but no jetting
progress could be made initially with the bi-directional jetting
tool due to a suspected "baking" or "crusting" which can be
experienced with resin coated proppants. Throughout the
clean-out process it was required to switch from the bi-
directional jetting tool to a more aggressive rotational jetting
tool or PDM and mill on two more occasions to achieve
penetration through the fill. It should be noted that it is now
possible to deploy the bi-directional jetting tool in conjunction
with a PDM and mill, and such operations have now been
performed on a number of occasions. For future coiled tubing
clean-out operations on resin coated proppants we would
highly recommend the use of a PDM and mill in conjunction
with the bi-directional jetting tool. This BHA set up allows a
more aggressive motor and mill action to penetrate any fill
before switching up to a pre-determined higher pump rate to
SPE 101235
perform an optimised wiper trip. Once in the backward facing
cleaning mode the PDM and mill are made redundant for this
phase of the operation.
On reaching the transport and removal phase of this
operation a number of challenges were faced. The clean-out
programme stages were based on detailed pre-job engineering
using the particle transport software. During the initial wiper
trip or clean-out runs none of the bauxite proppant was
returned to surface, i.e. pre-job engineering model replication
was not achieved. As a consequence of being unable to
accurately replicate model results, fluid pump rates were
increased and wiper trip speeds were decreased. Over the next
few runs a total of 8000 kg of bauxite proppant was
successfully removed from the well. Due to a slightly higher
than expected reservoir pressure and only minimal losses
during the clean-out it was not required to nitrify the power
fluid. Also worthy of note was the excellent performance
achieved from the power fluid friction reducer with figures of
up to 80% friction reduction achieved.
A coiled tubing "dry tag" on TD and subsequent wireline
runs confirmed the entire fill had been removed. The total
weight of proppant removed during the clean-out correlated
with a 100% fill capacity in relation to the tagged screen out
depth.
Although some initial difficulties were experienced in
removing the heavy weight bauxite and achieving model
replication, this operation provided invaluable data.
Subsequent detailed investigations on the test flow loop in
conjunction with analysis of actual job data from this
operation has resulted in some important changes and
improvements to the particle transport software model,
regarding the solids transport of heavy weight bauxite
proppant. This testing confirmed that particle transport
software model predictions were very accurate and reliable for
the transport of bauxite through the "vertical" and "horizontal"
sections, but were proven to be too optimistic through some of
the interim deviations. It was replicated that to effectively
remove 100% of the heavy bauxite proppant from this well
bore through the interim deviated well section, using seawater
as the power fluid, then the optimised wiper trip speed needed
to be considerably reduced, to around 20 ft / min in certain
deviations. The optimum wiper trip speeds for actual pump
rates as used during the operation, were confirmed in post job
investigations and are illustrated in figure 13. Simulation
results for well #1 are shown in figures 11 to 13. Figure 11
shows the sand distribution along the well-bore in 4 stages,
initial condition, after penetration, after circulation and after
the single wiper trip for the RIH speed of 5 ft/min.
Understanding and being able to model and predict solids
transport allows 100% solids removal from a well bore using
the most favourable coiled tubing size. Both BJ Services and
Talisman Energy (UK) Limited now have confidence that any
similar clean-out operation could be effectively engineered
and executed using the particle transport software and the bi-
directional jetting tool to achieve and optimised cleanout,
regarding coiled tubing size, pump rates, power fluid type and
wiper trip speeds.
Case 2: Well #2 is located in Texas, USA. This vertical gas
well was drilled to depths of more than 17,000 ft. The well
SPE 101235 Effective Heavy Post-Fracturing Proppant Cleanout with Coiled Tubing: Experimental Study and Field Casing History
was fracture-stimulated with slick water and high-strength
proppants: Bauxite in 5 stages. Each zone was perforated and
stimulated with Composite Bridge Plugs (CBP) used to isolate
each zone.
After all interested zones were fractured, a high pressure
CT string was used to mill up the CBPs. The zones were then
commingled and put on production. The following table lists
completion sizes from surface to PBTD:
I.D. (in.) Top (ft) Bottom (ft)
6.650
6.625
0
1,529
1,529
11,285
6.650
4.126
11,285
15,554
15,554
15,585
4.044 15,585 17,591
The lower Morrow (17,245 to 17,432 ft) had been fracture-
stimulated using 20/40 bauxite, and wireline was run to check
the top of the bauxite fill in the casing. It was found to be at
16,900 ft, which was higher than desired, as the operator
planned to set a Composite Bridge Plug, perforate and
fracture-stimulate the upper Morrow (16,991 to 17,180 ft).
The desired cleanout depth was 17,235 ft. The bottom hole
pressure was estimated at 17,339 psi, and the BHT was 243°F.
The work string was 1¾” CT (19,300 ft). Standard proppant
has a 2.65 specific gravity. In vertical wells, an accepted rule
of thumb liquid velocity for water to cleanout sand should be
at least 10 in/sec. Bauxite has a 3.55 specific gravity, and one
would expect a much greater liquid velocity would be
required. Foam was not considered because of high circulating
pressures and the added cost of nitrogen.
The solids transport simulation results confirmed that the
bauxite could be removed with 10 lbs/gal brine water at a
sufficient flow rate and a high cost gel biopolymer was not
required. The CT was RIH to the top of the sand and then
penetrated the fill at a rate of 5 ft/min, while circulating down
to 17,235ft. At this depth circulation was continued for 30
minutes and then the bi-directional jetting tool was switched to
reverse jetting mode. The CT was pulled out of the hole at the
optimum wiper trip speed as shown in figure 16. The POOH
speed in the top 6.65” section is much slower than it is in the
bottom 4” section.
The simulator predictions are shown in figures 14 to 16.
Simulation results indicated that the solids would only be
redistributed along the bottom 4” wellbore section during the
penetration stage. Solids were first detected in the field
approximately 18.5 hours after reaching TD as predicted. As
indicated with figure 15, the solids were removed with 100%
efficiency during the wiper trip stage.
After the job was finished, wireline was RIH and the top of
the bauxite was tagged at 17,252 ft. Adjusting for KB put it
within 6 ft of the desired depth.
Case 3: A vertical well in Western Australia was fractured.
The proppant being used was 12/18 bauxite, delivered using a
gel fluid at 1 to 10 lbs per gallon loading. A job problem led to
all four frac pumps having to be shut down, with the fracturing
operation in full swing. The sudden shutdown of the pumps
resulted in an estimated 58,000 lbs of bauxite in the well.
When faced with such a problem, the immediate concern is
always to recover the situation for the client. The task at hand
was to remove the proppant from the well. The well had been
plugged back to a depth of 13,541 ft through the use of a
5
Python composite plug. The well is vertical, cased with 5½”,
20 lb/ft casing all the way back to surface. The well’s BHP
could support a full column of diesel with substantial proppant
loading. The client did not want any aqueous fluids in the
well. The challenge was to design a coiled tubing cleanout for
this well using diesel or gelled diesel as the circulating
medium.
The cleanout design was conducted with the developed
solids transport software. Several job designs were reviewed,
involving the circulation of diesel or gelled diesel, with or
without the addition of nitrogen. In this case, there was little
predicted benefit to adding gel or nitrogen to the circulated
fluids. The job design evolved to circulating straight diesel, as
this offered the most operationally simple solution, as well as
the cheapest. The available coiled tubing was 14,260 ft of
tapered 1 ¾”.
The design of the cleanout was further complicated by the
fact that the position of the sand in the well was not known. A
cross-linked oil gel in the upper hole would be suspending
proppant. Lower in the well, the gel would have broken,
probably resulting in an area of the well with little or no
proppant, the bottom of the well being full of settled proppant.
Based on the estimated 58,000 lbs of bauxite in the well, and it
is simply assumed all bauxites were uniformly distributed
between 1640 ft and 13,541 ft, therefore, the initially 29% of
casing cross area is occupied by the post fracturing sands
between the depth of 1640 ft and 13,541 ft. The penetration
rate of CT in the bauxite fill column between 1640 ft and
13,541 ft is assumed as 10 ft/min with the forward nozzles.
Based on the above condition, the simulation results are
shown in figures 17 to 19.
A conservative design approach was taken for the job. This
was to take account of the fact that the proppant was larger
than typically modeled, and the fluid less dense than typically
modeled, as well as the unknown initial location of the
proppant in the well. The job design called for running into the
fill at a rate decreasing with depth. This was done in an
attempt to limit the volume of proppant in suspension at any
given time. The penetration rate for the first 7,500 ft was 50
ft/min. When on bottom, diesel was first circulated and then
the coil was pulled up at the half rate of that suggested by the
predicted results shown in figure 19. The special bi-directional
jetting tool was not available during the job and a simple
forward washing nozzle was used.
The proppant level was tagged after the job and found to
be at 1 ft above cleanout depth. At most, 20 lbs of bauxite
remained in the well.
Case 4: A 17,000 ft gas well had perforations covered with
450 ft of bauxite in Columbia. The BHP is 4400 psi and the
BHT is 280 F. The wellbore profile is shown in figure 20. The
6.084” ID mono-bore completion has a maximum deviation of
40 degrees which occurs between 15,000 ft and 15,600 ft.
20,000 ft of 2” CT was used to conduct the cleanout. The
well’s low BHP necessitates that a 2-phase fluid be pumped.
The formation is sensitive to water-bases liquids so diesel and
nitrogen are the chosen cleanout fluids. One of the difficulties
associated with the job is that pump rates were also limited to
4500 psi surface injection pressure. This reduced the liquid
rate that could be pumped and limited the effectiveness of
6 Li, Bayfield, Paton SPE 101235

stationary circulation. Another issue is that based on the cleaning time for a given operational case. This enables an
software simulation, lost returns could result from high solids engineer to optimize the job program to provide more cost
loading in the annulus and due to the liquid loading, if the effective operations in relation to CT size selection, power
wiper trip was taken too high up into the well at 3350 ft. fluid selection and time needed to remove near 100% of the
Stationary circulation was modeled not to be effective bauxite.
from total depth, so a wiper trip needed to be engaged
immediately. However, stationary circulation was used after Acknowledgments
early termination of the wiper trip to avoid the potential for The authors would like to express their appreciation to BJ
high liquid loading in the completion. Services Company and Talisman Energy (UK) Limited for the
The recommended cleanout procedure was : opportunity to present this paper. We wish to further thank BJ
1. To use a 2-1/8” bi-directional jetting nozzle and Services field operation crews for the execution of these
penetrate the fill at 10 ft/min. treatments, as well as Mike Kuchel, Lance Portman and Jeff
2. At TD the bi-directional jetting tool was switched to Harris.
backward facing nozzles.
3. Before beginning the wiper trip, the pump rates were Nomenclature
set to the predetermined values with a friction Cinj = injection solids volume concentration, solids volume
reducer. It took 5 hours to pull the CT from a depth flowrate/liquid volume flowrate, %
of 16,700 ft to the depth of 4950 ft. The optimized Cbed = solids volume concentration, solids true volume in the
wiper trip rate used is shown in figure 23. test section/total annular volume of the test section
4. At 4950 feet the coiled tubing was stopped to x100, %
remove remaining bauxite with stationary circulation Relative in-situ liquid velocity = Vin-situ/Vref in-situ
with preset flow rate in 277 minutes.
Relative liquid velocity, Vsup//Vref
The simulated results shown in figures 21 and 22 indicate
that the most of fill was located between 3350 ft and 4950 ft Q water
Vin − situ = , in-situ liquid
wellbore section after 5 hours POOH from the depth of 16,700 ( Aannular − Abed )(1 − C inj / 100)
ft. No bauxite had reached surface before stopping the wiper
trip. The first bauxite particles were return to the surface at velocity, in/s,
around 6 hours after the CT reached TD. . Vref = reference liquid superficial velocity, m/min
The wiper trip predicted results in figure 23 indicated at Vref in-situ = reference in-situ liquid velocity, in/s
15,500 ft the wiper speed reduced to 8 ft/min when passing
through the section of completion near 40 degrees deviation. Vsup = liquid superficial velocity, m/min
Complete solids removal was achieved by using a Vmin = minimum velocity at which solids transport occurs, in/s
combination of wiper trip and stationary circulation. As
indicated in the figure 22, there were no solids removed from BHP - bottom hole pressure
the well during the wiper trip portion of the cleanout. BHT – bottom hole temperature
Stationary circulation from 4950 ft removed the remaining CT - coiled tubing
solids in 277 minutes. A total of 10 hours was needed for CBP - Composite Bridge Plugs
complete solids removal. I.D. – internal diameter
The proppant level was tagged after the job and found to KB - Kelly Bushing
be at the desired clean depth and there was no bauxite left in OD – outside diameter
the hole. PBTD - Plug Back Total Depth
POOH or POH – pull out of hole
Summary RIH – run in hole
In this paper, the solids transport test results with bauxite in a TD – total depth
full scale flow loop are summarized and discussed. Based on TVD – total vertical depth
the comprehensive test data, a set of correlations have been
developed and updated into a complex and user friendly SI Metric Conversion Factors
computer program, for heavy post fracturing proppant bbl x159 E +00 = liter
(bauxite). The computer modeling provides a practical means ft x 0.3048 E +00 = m
of evaluating the solids transport based on the downhole inch x 25.4 E –03 = m
conditions. psi x 6.895 E +03 = Pa
A few case histories performed on both subsea and land
wells are presented. The engineering and implementation of References
CT post-fracturing bauxite cleanout for each individual field 1. Li, J. and S. Walker: “Sensitivity Analysis of Hole
case are discussed. The paper also describes how to use a Cleaning Parameters in Directional Wells”, SPE Journal,
customized down hole switchable wash nozzle and the solids pp356-363, December, 2001.
transport modeling software to optimize the post-fracturing 2. Walker, S. and J. Li: “Effects of Particle Size, Fluid
sand cleanout process with 100 % remove efficiency. Rheology, and Pipe Eccentricity on Cuttings Transport”,
The simulator allows the user to predict the time history of paper SPE 60755 presented at the 2000 SPE/ICoTA
solids in-situ concentrations along the wellbore and the hole Coiled Tubing Roundtable held in Houston, Texas, 5 - 6
SPE 101235 Effective Heavy Post-Fracturing Proppant Cleanout with Coiled Tubing: Experimental Study and Field Casing History 7

April 2000.
3. Walker, S. and J. Li: ”Coiled-Tubing Wiper Trip Hole
Cleaning in Highly Deviated Wellbores”, paper SPE
68435 presented at the 2001 SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing
Roundtable held in Houston, Texas, 7 - 8 March 2001.
October 6-9, 1991.
4. Li, J., S. Walker and B. Aitken: “How to Efficiently
Remove Sand From Deviated Wellbores With a Solids
Transport Simulator and a Coiled Tubing Cleanout Tool”,
paper SPE 77527 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas,
29 September–2 October 2002.
5. Li, J., G. Wilde and A. Crabtree: “Do Complex Super-Gel
Liquids Perform Better Than Simple Linear Liquids In
Hole Cleaning With Coiled Tubing?”, paper SPE 94185
presented at the 2005 SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing
Conference and Exhibition held in Woodlands, Texas,
U.S.A., 12 – 13 April 2005.
6. Li, J. and G. Wilde: “Affect of Particle Density and Size
on Solids Transport and Hole Cleaning with Coiled
Tubing”, paper SPE 94187 presented at the 2005
SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing Conference and Exhibition
held in Woodlands, Texas, U.S.A., 12 – 13 April 2005.
7. US patent 6,982,008 B2:“Coiled Tubing Wellbore
Cleanout”, January, 2006.
8. Engel, S. P. and P. Rae: “New Methods for Sand Cleanout
in Deviated Wellbores Using Small Diameter Coiled
Tubing”, paper IADC/SPE 77207 presented at the
IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology held in
Jakarta, Indonesia, 9–11 September 2002.
9. Ovesen, M., M. Sach, L. Laun, G. E. Gill and H. Juel:
“Efficient Sand Cleanouts in Larger Wellbores Using
Coiled Tubing: A New Approach Making an Old Problem
Simple”, paper SPE 81727 presented at the SPE/ICoTA
Coiled Tubing Conference held in Houston, Texas,
U.S.A., 8-9 April 2003.
10. Hobbs, Douglas and C. Liles: “Technique, nozzle enhance
coiled-tubing wiper-trip efficiency”, Oil & Gas Journal,
April 1, 2002, pp52-56.
11. Gilmore, T., R. Leonard and S. Steinback: ‘Software,
Fluids and Down Hole Tools for Successful Sand Clean
Outs in Any Wellbore Geometry Using Small Coiled
Tubing”, paper SPE 97080 presented at the 2005 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in
Dallas, Texas, U.S.A., 9 – 12 October 2005.
12. Eldien, H. N., M. A. Al-Anazi, R. Proctor, J. B. Chesson,
R. M. Saleh: “Challenging Wellbore Cleanouts with
Coiled Tubing Made Easy with Computer Modeling
Technology”, paper SPE 100129 presented at the 2006
SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing Roundtable held in
Woodlands, TX, U.S.A., 4–5 April 2006.
8 Li, Bayfield, Paton SPE 101235

0.3

0.25 5 degree

15 degree

30 degree
0.2
45 degree

55 degree

Cinj/Cbed
65 degree
0.15
90 degree

0.1

0.05

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Relative in-situ liquid velocity

Figure 3 Solids transport ratio for water/bauxite

at different angles

100

90

80

70

60
Cbed, %

50
Water/Bauxite/5 degree, 2 bpm
40
Water/Bauxite/15 degree, 2 bpm

Figure 1 Typical sand cleanout process with CT 30 Water/Bauxite/30 degree, 2 bpm

Water/Bauxite/45 degree, 2 bpm

20 Water/Bauxite/55 degree, 2 bpm

Water/Bauxite/65 degree, 2 bpm

10
Water/Bauxite/90 degree, 2 bpm

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Dimensionless ROP

Figure 4 Predicted sand in-situ concentration at different

angles in 5"X1.5" wellbore

50

45
Number of hole volume

40 Not completely Stationary circulation

35 cleaned out
30

25

20

15

10
Wiper trip with forward nozzle
5
Wiper trip with backward nozzle
0

Relative in-situ liquid velocity

Figure 5 Effect of hole cleaning mode and nozzle type on the

annular hole cleaning volume required in a horizontal
wellbore (water)
Figure 2 Photo of solids transport flow loop
SPE 101235 Effective Heavy Post-Fracturing Proppant Cleanout with Coiled Tubing: Experimental Study and Field Casing History 9

1.0
1.0
0.9 Minimum erosion velocity with stationary circulation mode
5 degree 0.9
0.8 Minimum liquid velocity with forward jets
15 degree 0.8
Dimensionless optimum wiper trip speed

Minimum liquid velocity with backward jets

0.7 30 degree
0.7

Minimum relative liquid velocity

45 degree
0.6 0.6
55 degree

0.5 65 degree 0.5

90 degree
0.4 0.4

0.3
0.3

0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Deviated angle, o
Relative liquid velocity

Figure 6 Effect of in-situ liquid velocity on the optimum wiper Figure 9 Minimum in-situ liquid velocity that corresponds to
trip speed at different angles (water/backward nozzle) the zero carrying capacity at different angles (water)

Easting, ft
1.0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
0
0.9

0.8
2000
Dimensionless optimum wiper trip speed

0.7 5 degree

15 degree 4000
0.6
30 degree
0.5
45 degree 6000
TVD, ft

0.4 55 degree

65 degree 8000
0.3
90 degree
0.2 10000

0.1
12000
0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Relative liquid velocity 14000

Figure 7 Effect of in-situ liquid velocity on the optimum wiper

Figure 10a Wellbore profile for Well #1 in North Sea
trip speed at different angles (water/forward nozzle)

60
90 5

80 4.5
50
5 degree
4
15 degree 70

30 degree
Fludization concentration, %

40 3.5
60
45 degree
Completion I. D., in
Deviation angle, o

3
55 degree
50
30
2.5
40
2
20
30 Deviation angle
1.5
Completion I. D.
10 20
1

10 0.5
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 0
Relative liquid in-situ velocity 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Measurement depth, ft
Figure 8 Bauxite fluidization concentration at different
Figure 10b Completion information for Well #1 in North Sea
deviation angles (water)
10
S o lid s % o f T o t a l C ro s s S e c t io n a l A re a
Li, Bayfield, Paton SPE 101235

S o lid s % o f T o t a l C ro s s S e c t io n a l A re a
Solids Bulk Cross Sectional Area Solids Bulk Cross Sectional Area
Solids in Completion[%] Solids After Penetration[%] Solids in Completion[%] Solids After Penetration[%]

Solids After Circulation[%] Solids After Wiper Trip[%] Solids After Circulation[%] Solids After Wiper Trip[%]
100 100

90 90

80 80

70 70

60 60

50 50

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
0 2500 5000 7500 10000 12500 15000 0 2500 5000 7500 10000 12500 15000 17500
Measured Depth [ft] Measured Depth [ft]
Figure 11 Solids distribution along the wellborn at different
operation stages for Well #1 at RIH speed 5 ft/min Figure 14 Solids distribution along the wellbore at different
operation stages for 10 ft/min of RIH speed (Well #2)

S o lid s R a t e a t S u r f a c e [ b b l/ d a y ]
Solids Removal after Penetration to Target Depth
d a t e a t S u r f a c e [ b b l/ d a y ]

[Transient response during Circulation and Wiper Trip]

Solids Removal after Penetration to Target Depth
[Transient response during Circulation and Wiper Trip] Solids Rate At Surface Solids Removed[%]

Solids Rate At Surface Solids Removed[%]

50

500
25
[ % ] o f I n it ia l S o lid s R e m o v e d
o vs e R

250
0
[ % ] o f I n it ia l S o lid s R Se omlid

100
0
100
75

75
50

50
25

25 0
0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0
0 [hr]
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
[hr]
Figure 12 Solids removal rate for Well #1 Figure 15 Solids removal rate for the vertical Well #2

Tripping Speed to be used while Pulling Out of Hole

P u ll O u t o f H o le R a te [f t / m in ]

Tripping Speed to be used while Pulling Out of Hole 100

P u ll O u t o f H o le R a te [f t / m in ]

100 90

90 80

80 70

70 60

60 50

50 40

40 30

30 20

20 10

10 0
0 2500 5000 7500 10000 12500 15000 17500
0 Circulation Depth [ft]
0 2500 5000 7500 10000 12500 15000
Circulation Depth [ft]
Figure 13 Predicted wiper trip speed for Well #1 with Figure 16 Predicted wiper trip speed for the vertical Well #2
backward nozzle mode with backward nozzle mode
SPE 101235
S o lid s % o f T o t a l C ro s s S e c t io n a l A re a
Effective Heavy Post-Fracturing Proppant Cleanout with Coiled Tubing: Experimental Study and Field Casing History 11

Solids Bulk Cross Sectional Area Easting, ft

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000
Solids in Completion[%] Solids After Penetration[%]
0
Solids After Circulation[%] Solids After Wiper Trip[%]
2000

25
4000

20 6000

8000

TVD, ft
15
10000

10
12000

5 14000

16000
0
-0 2500 5000 7500 10000 12500
18000
Measured Depth [ft]
Figure 17 Solids distribution along the wellborn at different Figure 20 Wellbore profile for Well #4 in Columbia
operation stages for 10 ft/min of RIH speed (Well #3)

S o lid s % o f T o t a l C ro s s S e c t io n a l A re a
Solids Bulk Cross Sectional Area
d a t e a t S u r f a c e [ b b l/ d a y ]

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

Solids Removal after Penetration to Target Depth
[Transient response during Circulation and Wiper Trip] Solids After Circulation[%] Solids After Wiper Trip[%]
100
Solids Rate At Surface Solids Removed[%]
200 90

150 80

70
100
60
o vs e R

50 50
[ % ] o f I n it ia l S o lid s R Se omlid

0 40
100
30

75 20

10
50
0
-0 2500 5000 7500 10000 12500 15000 17500
Measured Depth [ft]
25
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
[hr]
Figure 21 Solids distribution along the wellborn at different
Figure 18 Solids removal rate for Well #3 operation stages for Well #4 at 10 ft/min RIH speed after 5 hrs
POOH from the bottom of the well

200
Tripping Speed to be used while Pulling Out of Hole
30
P u ll O u t o f H o le R a te [f t / m in ]

180

160
25
140
Solids rate at surface, bbl/day

20 120

100

15
80

60 Wiper trip period up to 5000 ft MD Stationary hole cleaning period

10
40

5 20

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
0 2500 5000 7500 10000 12500 Time after penetrate to the target depth, hr
Circulation Depth [ft]
Figure 19 Predicted wiper trip speed for Well #3 with forward Figure 22a Solids removal rate for Well #4
nozzle mode
12 Li, Bayfield, Paton SPE 101235

100

90

80

70
% of initial solids removed

60

50

40

Wiper trip period up to 5000 ft MD Stationary hole cleaning period

30

20

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time after penetrate to the target depth, hr

Figure 22b Percentage of removed solids for Well #4

Tripping Speed to be used while Pulling Out of Hole

70
P u ll O u t o f H o le R a t e [ f t / m in ]

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000 17000
Circulation Depth [ft]

Figure 23 Predicted wiper trip speed for Well #4 with

backward nozzle mode

View publication stats