IADC/SPE-170487-MS

Milling Casing Exit Windows from a Hydraulic Workover Unit at Small

Footprint Platform

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEAPDT/proceedings-pdf/14APDT/All-14APDT/SPE-170487-MS/1480460/spe-170487-ms.pdf/1 by LUIS JORIGUA on 03 March 2024

Cham Soon Hoe, Cliff Hogg, Rahmat Wibisono, Ron Barker, and Randy Stutts, Weatherford International

Copyright 2014, IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference held in Bangkok, Thailand, 25–27 August 2014.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s).
Contents of the paper have not been reviewed by the International Association of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the International Association of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum
Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the International Association
of Drilling Contractors or 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 IADC/SPE copyright.

Abstract
When first discovered, the gas field located in New Zealand was one of the largest gas fields in the world.
After more than 30 years of production however, the reserves have declined drastically. To manage the
decline, infill drilling campaigns have recently been initiated to access previously bypassed gas reservoirs
in the field.
A development campaign to boost the field recovery factor was kicked off with the objective of
boosting recoverable reserves and extending the life of the field by drilling four sidetracks from existing
depleted wells. A lightweight, compact and modular hydraulic workover unit (HWU) was installed on the
previously unmanned, small footprint production platform with a small crew size of 32 people. While
slimhole drilling and completion with a HWU had proven cost effective and a successful concept during
previous workover campaigns, sidetracking from larger casing sizes at 2000-2400 metres depth with a
HWU, including one dual casing exit design in this campaign, was the first of its kind for the operator.
The four sidetracks were completed and the operation was a technical success, in large part due to the
pre-job planning, project management and identification of unique challenges to this particular project.
This paper will discuss the operational challenges encountered by the HWU including BHA handling
and tripping in of the whipstock assembly when working with only a 12-foot jack stroke and minimal deck
space. Additionally, the minimal rig capabilities of the HWU created challenges with regards to optimum
whipstock and milling configurations/operations resulting from limitations on rotary torque capacity,
rotary speed, pumping capacity and drill string racking capability, all of which were resolved by creative
applications of the simple, robust yet versatile design of the casing exit technology.

Introduction
In the past the field operator embarked on the first Through Tubing Rotary Drilling (TTRD) campaign on
one of the platforms to maximize remaining recovery through infill drilling into previously uneconomic
and therefore bypassed pockets of gas. The campaign included drilling three new sidetrack wells from
existing wellbores through dual casing exits from the existing 5 - 1/2” completion and 7-5/8” production
casing. From the window a new 4-3/8” open hole section was then drilled to TD and completed with
slotted liner, swellable packers and sections of blank liner in order to provide necessary sand control.
2 IADC/SPE-170487-MS

Although technically a success, the TTRD campaign had presented many technological and economic
constraints and challenges. The operational objective was to implement the most cost-effective solution
to extend the life of the wells. The field operator had initially considered a large number of options from
ERD wells, to short radius drain holes, and coiled tubing drilling. From past experiences, the platform rigs
had proven to be expensive due to the high mobilization costs into the region. As another potential
solution, coiled tubing could drill the wells but modeling showed there was a real risk of not being able
to run the liners to depth in the resulting drilled hole. Further more coiled tubing also didn’t offer the
synergies with other activities including water shut off, downward re-completions and well integrity work.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEAPDT/proceedings-pdf/14APDT/All-14APDT/SPE-170487-MS/1480460/spe-170487-ms.pdf/1 by LUIS JORIGUA on 03 March 2024

In considering this initial infill drilling campaign, there were few major criteria that took priority in the
feasibility study process. First, the design was to be adaptable or evolvable; the aim was to evolve the
system design to match both the specific requirements of individual targets and also to reduce risk, cost
and time as the campaign and learning curve progressed. The second consideration was a need to
accommodate conventional and TTRD sidetracks from a range of existing wells in differing casing sizes.
Thirdly, the solution needed to be robust enough to handle potential changes in surface parameter
requirements due to downhole drilling conditions. A further key requirement, due to the small footprint
of the platform and limited accommodation facilities, was a need for a unit that was lightweight, compact
and required only a small drilling crew. Finally the operator was settled on the use of a hydraulic workover
unit (HWU) for the workover campaign. The initial assessment at the time showed potential for
considerable savings over wells drilled with a platform rig. The rapid mobilization of the unit, for
example, could be done at a much lower cost compared to a platform rig mobilization. These cost savings
had made the TTRD sidetrack drilling solution into the by-pass gas targets the most economical option.
The campaign utilizing this system approach was completed and was successful in demonstrating that gas
was in place and producible from the pockets.
Second Campaign and Challenges with HWU
Following the success of the previous infill drilling campaign, the operator embarked on a more ambitious
and challenging second campaign utilizing a HWU. The objective was to develop reserves from the high
permeability sand in the crest of the reservoir structure by re-completing an existing well and also drilling
four new sidetracks wells through casing exits from the 9-5/8” sized casing in four depleted wells.
Permanent whipstocks were installed between 2000 to 2400 metres depth and the 8-1/2” windows were
then created with milling operations allowing the 6-1/8” directional drilling assembly to be kicked off.
Subsequently the horizontal 6-1/8” open hole sections were drilled to TDs between 3400 to 4000 metres.
The wells were then either cemented with 4-1/2” liners or completed with 4-1/2” slotted liners with
swellable packers for isolation. In both configurations, the 4-1/2” liners were run from the reservoir back
through the mainbore window and hung off in the 9-5/8” casing.
The second campaign was carried out with the same HWU from the previous TTRD campaign (Figure
1). The fit-for-purpose HWU had been built with pulling capability of 340,000 lbs and maximum
snubbing load of 148,000 lbs. It was equipped with 13-5/8”, 5000psi rating BOP stack and two PZ8
Gardner Denver mud pumps. The rotary drive was capable of providing 80 RPM with a maximum 16,000
ft-lbs rotary torque transmitted from the rotating head through the traveling slips to the pipe body. The
hydraulic jack had a 12-foot stroke and the pipe racking design of the unit allowed racking of the work
string in doubles, with capacity of 18,000ft 3-1/2” DP. The rig hydraulic system also had a built in
‘interlock’ safety system to assure positive weight transfer of tubulars while tripping operations were
being performed. This electric over hydraulic fail safe system prevents all slips from being opened
simultaneously, and therefore protects the tubing from being dropped down the well, in the event of an
operator error at the controls.
While setting a whipstock and milling a window with HWU was proven achievable in the previous
TTRD campaign, those past casing exits were performed in a smaller 5-1/2” completion string which was
IADC/SPE-170487-MS 3

well within range of the HWU capability and rat-

ings. The second workover campaign however, re-
quired access to pancake-like pockets of pay zone,
which were potentially only 5-15 metres thick. With
such thin targets, the planned well trajectories were
extremely critical and their location necessitated the
creation of the sidetracks in the intermediate 9-5/8”
casing. The larger whipstock and milling assembly

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEAPDT/proceedings-pdf/14APDT/All-14APDT/SPE-170487-MS/1480460/spe-170487-ms.pdf/1 by LUIS JORIGUA on 03 March 2024

sizes required to exit this 9-5/8” casing also led to
higher rig capability needs, pushing the HWU to the
limit of its ability.
The desired casing exit and drilling program
created new and critical challenges with the HWU
in five primary areas:
BHA Handling
The HWU did not have a mast, and it was instead
equipped with a gin pole for BHA handling on the
work basket. With this configuration, the HWU had
no capability for making up a BHA on the work
basket, so all the milling assemblies had to be made
up onshore before shipping to the well. After mak-
ing up the whipstock to the milling assembly with a
single attachment shear bolt, the assembly would
Figure 1—Hydraulic Workover Unit
then be run into the existing wellbore with the main
winch from the gin pole. Once the whipstock, all the
larger OD mill bodies and the MWD assembly had passed through the slips and BOP, the stationary slip
and traveling slip could then grip on the uniform OD body at the same time, usually on the first joint of
drill collar or heavy weight drill pipe. Once the slips were able to engage, the running operation was then
able to be taken over by the hydraulic jack. Running in a whipstock hanging below the 30 metres long
BHA by a shear bolt with a single winch and passing through all the critical tight spots on the BOP and
wellhead area was not an easy task, with particular concern expressed during the pre-planning process
about the possibility of pre-maturely shearing and releasing the whipstock from the milling assembly.
Another major handling challenge with the HWU on an offshore platform was optimum deck space
management. As a result of the limited deck space available, all of the downhole assemblies were made-up
in town and came out in pairs in a 14 metres offshore basket. However the basket itself took up much of
the deck space and restricted access routes to the HWU. Therefore all the downhole assemblies had to be
offloaded from the basket so that it could be removed and sent back to shore. Even with the basket
removed, thorough pre-planning and several movements of the whipstock and milling assemblies were
required during the preparation phase in order to provide for adequate floor space during those earlier
operational steps.

Tripping In
The HWU was designed to handle double joints of tubing or pipe and so tripping in and out of the hole
could be time consuming, particularly on deep wells. Additionally, the whipstock assembly was tripped
in with the 12-foot stroke hydraulic jack of the HWU, and this “snubbing” action meant constantly picking
up and stopping for setting between the stationary and travelling slips every 10-12 feet while tripping in
to the setting depth between 2000 to 2400 metres. This constant jerking of pipe action could potentially
create stress and metal fatigue on the attachment bolt leading to pre-mature shearing of the bolt and release
4 IADC/SPE-170487-MS

of the whipstock from the milling assembly. The 9-5/8” whipstock system was designed to utilize one of
the different three shear bolts with 40,000 lbs, 48,000 lbs or 59,000 lbs rating. In this campaign the 40,000
lbs shear bolt was used due to the limited string weight available with the HWU. However, lower shear
rating bolt meant higher risk of metal fatigue from the tripping operation.
Pump Capability
The HWU was equipped with two PZ8 Gardner Denver mud pumps and dressed with 6” liner, capable
of delivering a maximum of 400 GPM flow rate and 2800 psi pressure. The hydraulic 9-5/8” whipstock
was designed to be set by flow rate, and the minimum set up of 6 shear pins requires 350-450 GPM flow

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEAPDT/proceedings-pdf/14APDT/All-14APDT/SPE-170487-MS/1480460/spe-170487-ms.pdf/1 by LUIS JORIGUA on 03 March 2024

rate to create sufficient back pressure to set the hydraulic anchor, pushing the capability of these pumps.
Ultimately, the mud pumps were unable to achieve the flow rates required to set the whipstock anchor.
The limited pump capability also created potential difficulty in achieving optimum flow rate required
for satisfactory hole cleaning. It is important to effectively clean the hole during and after the milling
process in order to create the best possible window and optimum downhole drilling conditions for the
drilling assembly. The calculated steel cuttings generated by a 9 5/8” whipstock job is estimated at 268
lbs, as compared to the 150 lbs of steel debris that was created during the dual casing exits through 5-1/2”
and 7-5/8” casing in the earlier campaign. In addition to the increased steel cuttings, the annulus of the
9 - 5/8” casing was obviously greater as well, making it even more challenging to create the necessary
levels of lifting force and fluid volume with the HWU pumps.
String Weight
The HWU was limited by the pulling and pipe racking capability, so small size tubular 4” drill pipe (DP),
4” heavy weight drill pipe (HWDP) and 4 %” drill collars (DC) were used in this campaign. With 40,000
lbs in force e required to shear the mill from the whipstock, and additional set down weight required to
ensure full engagement of the whipstock anchor to the casing, concern was expressed with the ability to
convey adequate weight to depth considering the smaller, lighter pipe to be used.
Insufficient string weight also has direct impact on the milling operations and presented a challenge
with regards to the milling. Key criteria to any successful casing exit is Weight on Mill (WOM), flow rate,
pressure, rotary speed and torque supplied at the mill. By adjusting all of these parameters to optimum
values, the most efficient and effective casing exit window will result. Casing exits demand constant
downhole force be applied to the window mill during milling operations and it is estimated that 35% of
all failed window milling attempts can be directly attributed to too little or too much WOM. These failed
attempts typically result in short, contorted, unusable windows that cost operators NPT due to multiple
trips, or stuck conditions after drilling commences. The nominal WOM for milling a 9-5/8” casing is
between 15,000 to 35,000 lbs. Furthermore, slim pipe is more prone to buckling than larger pipe sizes, and
as depths and deviation increase, weight transfer becomes more challenging, which could cause an even
further reduction in transmitting the weight down to the milling assembly during milling.
Rotary Speed and Torque
The 5-1/2” casing exits were achieved in the previous TTRD campaign through the use of smaller 4 3/8”
milling assemblies with a downhole motor and slow RPM. However for 9-5/8” whipstock, higher rotary
and torque capability is required due to the larger 8-1/2” mills that are being utilized, and the lack of a
downhole motor. Providing suitable milling speeds and torque tolerances for these larger assemblies using
the same HWU from the previous phase of the infill project created yet another concern during the
pre-planning process. The 8-1/2” mill design requires a nominal rotary speed of 100-140 RPM for milling
the window effectively, but the HWU was only capable of providing a maximum 80 RPM, which is not
ideal. In addition to the torque limitations, a search of the global database from previous jobs indicated
that the anticipated milling torque at the 2000-2400 metres depth with 20,000 -25,000 lbs WOM and
100-120 RPM rotary speed was in the range of 15,000-18,000 ft- lb. This predicted torque requirement
was right on the edge of the 16,000 ft-lb rotary torque rating capability of the HWU.
IADC/SPE-170487-MS 5

Job Planning
Overcoming these challenges required thorough and careful planning at all stages of the operation along
with selections of specific technologies to mitigate the risk and technical constraint arising from the
unconventional drilling unit. Optimizing the installation requires working closely with the operator and
other drilling contractors during all wellbore planning, preparation and execution phases to ensure that the
best options were used and contingency measures were in place in advance of mobilizing and installing
the whipstock. The pre- job planning was focused primarily on the major five areas previously discussed.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEAPDT/proceedings-pdf/14APDT/All-14APDT/SPE-170487-MS/1480460/spe-170487-ms.pdf/1 by LUIS JORIGUA on 03 March 2024

Whipstock System Selection
The operator desired a casing exit design that is simple, robust, versatile, highly reliable, and most
importantly, a repeatable system. The design also required the whipstock to be tripped in hole, orientated,
hydraulically set and then the window milled in single trip. Based on these criteria, the operator selected
a casing exit solution utilizing a whipstock with 3 degree concave angles. The benefits of choosing a 3
degree system rather than a more “shallow” concave include shorter windows that result in less milling
time and also reduced cuttings needing to be removed to surface. A typical 3 degree whipstock will result
in approximately 4m window length. Shorter windows also allow for quicker deflection from the main
bore, which was important in this campaign due to the lack of Cement Bond Log (CBL) records and
questionable cement quality behind the casing.
The selected casing exit system consisted of a milling assembly utilizing two separate mills. The
lowermost lead mill utilizes a combination of crushed carbide and carbide inserts and is designed to
provide the initial casing exit cut while also providing the primary formation drilling capability once
through the casing. Directly above the leading mill is a full gauge watermelon mill with an integral flex
joint. This is a key component which is designed to both mill out the upper portion of the casing exit
window and also, as a result of the flexible nature of the joint, provides enough bend to both ensure a
proper trajectory of mills along the concave scoop and ensuring maximum transmission of the string
weight to the lead mill as it begins drilling formation rat hole. These aggressive mill cutting designs could
enhance the ROP with lighter WOM required, making the utilization of the HWU with this casing exit
system possible.
Along with the concave and mill design, the anchoring component for the whipstock assembly was also
selected based on a single-trip casing exit installation requirement. To best meet the challenges of this
particular HWU project, an anchoring system utilizing a unique eccentric slip system was selected. This
anchor system utilizes a setting mechanism that, when actuated by hydraulics, drives a wedge-type slip
configuration against the casing. This wedge type of engagement offers a much larger range of casing size
compatibilities as compared to the more conventional “slip and cone” anchoring systems. This increased
casing size range capability was of utmost importance as the casing condition of the selected wells might
had potentially deteriorated due to more than 30 years of production and numerous workovers that had
been conducted during that time.
In addition to the unique slip system of the chosen whipstock anchor, the setting method also provided
an advantage for these project wells. As previously mentioned, the chosen anchoring system is attached
to the milling assembly with a mechanical shear bolt, allowing the whipstock to be tripped in hole,
anchored, and milling of the window completed in a single trip. Although the milling assembly is sheared
from the anchor using mechanical force, the setting of the anchor itself can be actuated using either
mechanical force against a downhole bridge plug, or as occurred on these project wells, the whipstock
anchor can be set hydraulically, using tubular flow. The selection of the hydraulic setting option on these
wells and the resulting ability to set at any depth in the wellbore was vital on this project in ensuring that
the most optimum path for drilling into the thin gas zones could be achieved.
6 IADC/SPE-170487-MS

Torque and Drag Analysis

Torque and Drag simulations were performed to study the impact of the insufficient string weight due to
the slim size drill pipe used by the HWU. Several BHA combinations were modelled to get the optimum
configuration in term of the quantity of 4” HWDP and 4-3/4” DC required and their placement in the
BHA. The string weight was particularly critical in these whipstock installations for effective milling
performance, and to determine what shear value of single attachment bolt to use for tripping in the
whipstock. As mentioned earlier, one of the challenges was the “snubbing” action by the 12-foot hydraulic
jack could possibly fatigue the shear bolt prematurely and release the whipstock during tripping in

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEAPDT/proceedings-pdf/14APDT/All-14APDT/SPE-170487-MS/1480460/spe-170487-ms.pdf/1 by LUIS JORIGUA on 03 March 2024

operation. Typically in such situation, the shear bolt value could have been increased in order to allow for
higher risk tolerance, but this was not possible in this installation due to concern that not enough weight
could then be conveyed downhole to shear the milling assembly from the whipstock once on depth. Along
with downhole weight calculations, the simulations also included modelling the maximum acceptable
surface torque at different rotary speed during the milling process.
The results of these simulations showed that 15 joints of 4” HWDP and 12 joints of 4-3/4” DC were
the optimum configuration to provide the maximum set down weight of 40,000 lbs with only minor
sinusoidal buckling on the drill string. Above 40,000 lbs helical buckling started to form and there was
a risk of drill string “lock up” which could have prevented any further weight transmitting down to the
bottom hole. Based on the study, a 40,000 lbs single attachment bolt was chosen for this application. The
results also showed with the limiting rotary head capabilities of 16,000 ft-lb surface torque, the rotary
speed needed to be maintained at 80 RPM or lower when applying 20,000 lbs WOM.
Whipstock Setting Hydraulics
The hydraulic setting of the anchor was designed for 9-5/8” casing based on the parameters and hydraulics
normally available in a typical operation in that casing size. The anchor design requires a minimum set
up of 6 shear pins, which usually takes a 350-450 GPM flow rate to create sufficient back pressure to
overcome the shear value needed to actuate the anchor. In this application with less available flow rate
and pump pressure, the engineering team was consulted to look into the possibility of configuring the
system to allow the anchor to be set with a lower flowrate of between 300-350 GPM, while also still
providing the ability to use MWD to determine tool face orientation. After reviewing the particular well
requirements of this project, the engineering team was able to offer a reconfigured hydraulic set up
allowing for a lower flow rate and less shear pins without compromising the performance of the anchor.
Hole Cleaning
A 9.1ppg low solids Synthetic Oil Base Mud (SBM) was used for milling the window in this campaign.
Hydraulics modelling showed a minimum of 400-450 GPM flow rate was required for effective hole
cleaning, however this was not achievable due to the limiting capabilities of the mud pumps in delivering
both the flow rate and pump pressure. While the pumps could possibly deliver 400 GPM when running
at full speed, the limiting pump pressure of 2800 psi would be reached once the pumps reached a 340
GPM rate.
A type of hi-viscosity sweep formulated by sized synthetic fibers that interlock when mixed with water
or drilling fluid to create an excellent sweep with high carrying capacity was chosen to overcome the low
flow rate issue. The fibers were removed from the mud along with the steel cuttings over the shale shaker.
This hi-viscosity sweep did not require additions of polymer and gel and did not affect chemical and
rheological properties of the drilling fluid. While it had been used for numerous times by the operator in
drilling operation, this was the first time it was applied in the milling operation.
In addition to the synthetic fiber utilization in the fluid, other measures were also taken to improve the
efficiency of the mud pumps. On deck, the flow line on the HWU was modified to shorten the length and
all the restriction points such as turns and bends, including the “flow show” paddle were removed prior
to milling operations in order to prevent blockage by the steel cuttings.
IADC/SPE-170487-MS 7

Table 1—Milling parameter and result summary

Well #1 Well #2 Well #3 Well #4

Project Date August 2011 March 2012 June 2012 September 2012
Casing Size 9 5/8” 47ppf, L80 9 5/8” 43.5ppf, L80 ⫻ 13 9 5/8” 47ppf, L80 9 5/8” 47ppf, C95
3/8” 54.5ppf, K55
Whipstock Face (°) 3 3 3 3
Acchor Type Hydraulic Hydraulic Hydraulic Hydraulic
Attachment Bolt (lbs) 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000
Setting Depth (m) 2067 1987 2410 2120

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEAPDT/proceedings-pdf/14APDT/All-14APDT/SPE-170487-MS/1480460/spe-170487-ms.pdf/1 by LUIS JORIGUA on 03 March 2024

Well Inclination @ Setting Depth 24.21 0.06 30 7.87
Orientation Method MWD Gyro MWD MWD
Toolface Orientation (°) 13 Left 159 63 Right 30 Left
High Side/Low Side Exit High Side High Side High Side High Side
Setting Fluid SBM Water Water Water
Setting Flow Rate (GPM) 340 350 330 245
Setting Pressure (psi) 2700 1800 1800 1500
Mill Size (in) 8 ½” 8 ½” 8 ½” 8 ½”
Window Length (m) 4 4 4 4
Milling Fluid SBM SBM SBM SBM
Weight on Mill (lbs) 17,000 22,000 10,000 20,000
Rotary Speed (RPM) 80 70 50 70
Free Torque (ft-lb) 8,500 6,000 10,000 6,000
Milling Torque (ft-lb) 16,000 10,000 14,000 12,000
Milling Flow Rate (GPM) 265 310 230 235
Milling Pressure (psi) 1800 1600 1400 1500
Average ROP (m/hr) 1.33 0.70 0.47 1.05
Milling Time 3:00hr 5:40hr 8:30hr 3:48hr
Milling Trip 1 1 2 1
Rathole Length (m) 3 3 3 3
Formation Shale Shale Shale Shale
Mill Wear (in) 1/16” 1/16” Negligible Negligible

HSE
A few operational hazards were identified in the casing exit operation, such as potential for dropped
objects from the work basket, steel cuttings handling, SBM handling and spillage control, and also heavy
lifting issues. Job hazard analysis, risk assessment and mitigation, dropped objects prevention schemes
and complex lifting plans were carried out ahead of time to address all of these HSE issues. Training was
also provided to the crew to ensure cuttings handling equipment was fully commissioned and that spillage
reporting requirements were understood by everyone before the milling operation commenced.
Results
This section will discuss the operational sequence, milling event, milling parameter and the performance
in each well. A summary of this information can be found in Table 1.
Well #1
This was the first well of the campaign and the 9-5/8” casing exit job was the first major operation for
the well after completing the well abandonment and de-completion activities. The operation was crucial
to assess the readiness of the HWU before entering into the drilling phase, especially the performance
testing of the rotary head. The initial set up for setting of the hydraulic whipstock anchor was 380 GPM
tubular flow rate based on information provided during the pre-job planning. However it was reduced to
340 GPM to provide error tolerance for the pump capability. The MWD operating flow rate was set up
at 170 GPM for tool face reading. Before the whipstock operation, a simulation assembly comprised of
8 IADC/SPE-170487-MS

8-1/2” window mill, 8-1/2” watermelon mill and 12 joints of 4” HWDP was tripped in hole to setting
depth. This trip provided the opportunity to ensure a clean wellbore at setting depth while also verifying
that proper casing ID was still available for running the casing exit system to depth. Additionally, this trip
was used to displace the well to 8.7ppg SBM and provided the opportunity to test the pumps’ performance.
The rotary test was performed at this stage also to confirm sufficient torque and rotary speed could be
delivered by the rotary head. The DP was racked back in double while tripping out.
The 9-5/8” whipstock was picked up with the platform crane and lifted to the work basket, and was
then set down on top of the hydraulic jack supported by a T-bar at working height. The pre-made up

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEAPDT/proceedings-pdf/14APDT/All-14APDT/SPE-170487-MS/1480460/spe-170487-ms.pdf/1 by LUIS JORIGUA on 03 March 2024

milling BHA which was comprised of 8-1/2” lead mill, 8-1/2” flex mill and one joint of 5” HWDP was
then picked up with the platform crane and lifted to the work basket, where it was transferred to the main
winch from the gin pole. The milling assembly was next lowered down on the main winch to the top of
the whipstock and the 40,000 lbs single attachment shear bolt was installed. After making up to the MWD
assembly, the whipstock/milling assembly was tripped in slowly while picking up 12 joints of 4 3/4⬙ DC
and 15 joints of 4” HWDP. Pre-planning had recognized the passing of this assembly through the wellhead
as a potential hazard so the rig crew was alerted and assisted in guiding the whipstock assembly through
the stationary slips and BOP. The whipstock continued to be tripped in on 4” DP to the setting depth at
2067 metres. Using the MWD to provide tool face readings, the whipstock was oriented to 13 degrees left
of high side and the hydraulic anchor was set with a 340 GPM flow rate. The recorded pump pressure was
2700 psi, and it was just within the upper capability of the pumps. After the anchor had been set, the string
was slacked off to shear the attachment bolt at 40,000 lbs releasing the whipstock from the milling BHA.
An additional 45,000 lbs set down weight was next applied to the whipstock to ensure full engagement
of the anchor to the casing. These steps were achieved without difficulty.
After completing the setting sequence, the milling BHA was picked up above the whipstock and the
operation was suspended for 5 hours to test the annulus valve to 2500 psi. When the operation resumed,
the milling parameters were set. The string was rotated at 80 RPM and free rotating torque was recorded
at 8,500 ft-lb. The window milling commenced from 2063 metres to 2067 metres with an average 17,000
lbs WOM, 80 RPM, 16,000 ft-lb milling torque, 265 GPM flow rate and 1800 psi pump pressure.
Unfortunately, after milling for 2.75 metres, the SBM overflowed from the flow line and milling had to
be suspended for 11 hours for cleaning and making adjustment on the flow line elevation. After the
remedial operations, the milling process resumed and the remaining 1.25 metres window was completed
and additional 3 metres of rathole was drilled. The hole was circulated clean with 15bbl of hi-viscosity
sweep formulated with the synthetic fiber. The total 4 metres of window length was completed in 3 hours,
with an average ROP of 1.33m/hr. Surface inspection of the mills revealed only 1/16” undergauge, which
is within acceptable tolerance. Subsequent 6-1/8” directional drilling BHAs were then run through the
window without problems or difficulty.
The whipstock job was successfully completed in one trip and within 3 days as per planning. The time
breakdown for each operation was: 3 hours for making up whipstock BHA, 26 hours for tripping in, 2
hours for MWD orientation and setting of the hydraulic anchor, 3 hours for milling the 4 metres of
window, 3 hours for drilling the 3 metres rathole and reaming, 1 hour for hole circulation, 20 hours for
tripping out, 1 hour laying out milling BHA. Resulting total time for the casing exit was only 63 hours,
with almost 75% of that time tied up in a single trip into and out of the hole.

Well #2
The original plan for this well was to exit from the 9-5/8” casing, however the cut and pull of
5-1/2”completion tubing at original planned depth was unsuccessful. As a result of the second tubing cut
at a higher than planned depth, the casing exit target depth was now located at a depth above the 13-3/8”
casing shoe. Fortunately, the resulting unplanned dual casing exit job from 9-5/8” and 13-3/8” casing was
well within the casing exit design and capability, and no modification was needed on either the whipstock
IADC/SPE-170487-MS 9

or the milling assembly. However this change to a dual exit pushed the HWU to the absolute limits of its
capabilities. Generally much higher rotary torque and rotary speed is required for milling two casing
strings at the same time, and much higher pump capability is also required for cleaning the higher volume
of steel cuttings generated.
The 9-5/8” whipstock and 8-1/2” milling assembly was made up and tripped in hole using the same
process as previously discussed to the setting depth at 1987 metres. Instead of using MWD to determine
tool face orientation as occurred in the first well, a wireline Gyro was instead used for the orientation
survey due to the straight hole profile. The wireline operation required much longer time as compared to

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEAPDT/proceedings-pdf/14APDT/All-14APDT/SPE-170487-MS/1480460/spe-170487-ms.pdf/1 by LUIS JORIGUA on 03 March 2024

the MWD, mainly due to rigging up and down, plus a few hours of down time resulting from a wireline
tool failure. The whipstock was oriented to 159 degrees Az and the hydraulic anchor was set. The
experience gained from the first well helped lead to improvement on the second whipstock job. Due to
the high pump pressure 2700 psi seen while setting the whipstock with SBM at 340 GPM on last well,
the procedure was revised and the whipstock anchor on this second well was set by water instead. The
fluid change resulted in a much more comfortable pump pressure of 1800 psi at 350 GPM. After shearing
off the 40,000 lbs single attachment bolt to release the whipstock from the milling assembly, the well was
then displaced to 9.1 ppg SBM in preparation for the milling operation. The pump pressure was 1100 psi
at 250 GPM flow rate with this fluid changeout. The string was rotated at 70 RPM and free rotating torque
of 6,000 ft-lb recorded. The window milling commenced from 1983 metres to 1987 metres with an
average 22,000 lbs WOM, 70 RPM, and 10,000 ft-lb milling torque. After milling for 1.75 metres, the
SBM again overflowed; this time from the bell nipple due to the blockage at the flow line by a build up
of the steel cuttings. Milling had to be suspended for 9 hours while clearing the blockage at the flow line.
After the milling operation resumed, the flow rate was increased to 310 GPM and 1600 psi for better hole
cleaning, and the decision was made to stop milling after every subsequent 1 metre in penetration in order
to conduct a bottoms up circulation. The WOM was increased to 24,000 lbs when the milling assembly
started cutting out on the 13-3/8” outer casing, and the rotary torque was maintained at 10,000 ft-lb. After
cut out of the 13-3/8” casing had been achieved, the remaining portion of the window was completed with
reduced WOM between 10,000 to 12,000 lbs while allowing sufficient time for downhole cleaning. After
the 3 metres rathole was drilled and the window was reamed to minimal torque the hole was circulated
clean with 15bbl of hi-viscosity sweep. The total 4 metres window was completed in 5 hours 40 minutes,
with an average ROP of 0.70m/hr. The mills were again found to be only 1/16” undergauge and thereafter
the 6-1/8” directional drilling BHA was passed through the window without problems.
The whipstock job was successfully completed in one trip and within 3 days as per planning. While
dual casing exits usually require much higher parameters to complete, the aggressive lead mill design was
able to perform successfully with the lower WOM, rotary speed and rotary torques provided by the HWU.

Well #3
The 9-5/8” whipstock and 8-1/2” milling assembly on this third well was made up and tripped in hole with
the same procedures previously discussed to the setting depth at 2412 metres. It was the deepest setting
depth among the four wells in this campaign, and also had the highest wellbore inclination at 30 degrees.
The whipstock was oriented with MWD to 63 degrees right of high side and the hydraulic whipstock
anchor was again set using water at a 330 GPM flow rate, and 1800 psi pump pressure. The well was then
displaced to 9.1 ppg SBM in preparation for the milling operation. After all the parameters were agreed
upon, the string was rotated at 70 RPM and free rotating torque reading was recorded at 10,000 ft-lb. The
window milling commenced from 2406 metres with 5,000 lbs WOM, 70 RPM, and 12,000 ft-lb milling
torque. Unfortunately, as milling progressed and more weight was applied, the rotary head started stalling
constantly due to the rotary torque exceeding its capacity limit. In response, the string was then picked up
to release the trapped torque and lowered back to the top of whipstock, after which all the parameters had
to be re-established before the milling could be resumed. After a few attempts, the rotary speed was
10 IADC/SPE-170487-MS

eventually dropped to 50 RPM before continuous milling could be achieved with 10,000 lbs WOM and
14,000 ft-lb of milling torque. After milling for 2 metres and reaching the lead mill’s “core point”, the
mills would not progress further. “Core point” is the terminology used to describe a milling event where
the lead mill has almost half way penetrated into the casing. At that point, the pilot tip of the mill with
the small cutting surface area is spinning directly onto the casing, likely causing the slow milling action
and dropping of milling torque that was seen. In response to such an event, the WOM should be applied
aggressively in order to push the mill over so that the casing can be exposed to bigger cutting structure.
Working with this HWU however and faced with the constant stalling of the rotary head, applying higher

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEAPDT/proceedings-pdf/14APDT/All-14APDT/SPE-170487-MS/1480460/spe-170487-ms.pdf/1 by LUIS JORIGUA on 03 March 2024

WOM was not possible. The deeper setting depth and higher inclination well profile had raised the
resulting free rotating torque as compared to the other wells, while the upper limit of milling torque was
still constrained to the 16,000 ft-lb rotary head capability, drastically narrowing the operating envelope for
milling. Making the situation even worse, the rotary head performance of the HWU had deteriorated
during the drilling of the previous two wells and had lost some of the expected capability seen at the
beginning of this project.
Faced with the limitations of torque and weight that could be applied, the milling BHA was tripped out
of the hole and an 8-1/2” contingency milling BHA comprising of 8-1/2⬙ window mill, 8-1/2⬙ flex mill
and a joint of 5⬙ HWDP was tripped in the hole to complete the window construction. The remainder of
the window was milled successfully and an additional 3 metres rathole was drilled. The window was then
reamed with minimal drag and circulated clean with the hi-viscosity sweep. The window was completed
in a total 8 hours 30 minutes in two trips, with an average ROP of 0.47m/hr. Surface inspection of the mills
revealed only negligible wear and the following 6-1/8” directional drilling BHA was run through the
window without problems.

Well #4
The 9-5/8” whipstock and 8-1/2” milling assembly was made up similar to the previous wells and tripped
in to the setting depth at 2120 metres. The whipstock was oriented with MWD to 30 degrees left of high
side and preparation began to set the whipstock anchor. Unfortunately, just before setting the hydraulic
anchor one of the pumps went down. With just one pump running, it was not possible to deliver the
maximum 350GPM flow rate needed to set the whipstock with water. According to the design and
hydraulic set up, the anchor should have been capable of setting at the range of 250-350 GPM. This rate
range was just a bit higher than the 245 GPM flow rate possible with the single pump. With the available
flow rate so close to the lower point in that setting range, and the whipstock anchor already oriented and
on depth, the decision was made to attempt to set the anchor. The setting attempt was successful and the
anchor was set and performed exactly as per design without any resulting downtime.
After shearing off the 40,000 lbs single attachment bolt to release the whipstock from the milling
assembly, the well was then displaced to 9.1 ppg SBM before suspending the operations for 24 hours
while waiting for the parts for pump repair. The operator wanted to get both the pumps back on line before
the milling operation commenced. Once the second pump was back in service, the milling operation
started with 70 RPM and a free rotating torque reading of 6,000 ft-lb. Helping this casing exit operation
was a new rotary head which had been installed following the poor performace encountered on the
previous well operation, which had led to the additional trip milling the window. On this fourth well of
the project, the window milling was completed in a single trip from 2122 metres to 2126 metres with
20,000lbs WOM, 70 RPM, and 12,000 ft-lb of milling torque. The total milling time was 3 hour and 48
minutes and average ROP was 1.05m/hr. Following the window milling an additional 3 metres rathole was
then drilled and the window was reamed to minimal drag and circulated clean with hi-viscosity sweep.
The mills were inspected and seen to have negligible wear and the 6-1/8” directional drilling BHA was
able to pass through the window without difficulty.
IADC/SPE-170487-MS 11

Conclusion
Despite the significant challenges encountered during this workover campaign, the experience of setting
a larger whipstock and milling larger casing window at deeper depth with HWU can be considered a
complete success. Excellent HSE, milling and operational performance was delivered throughout the
project. This success is, in large part, attributed to the substantial time invested in pre-project planning to
properly understand the challenges presented by the HWU capabilities and the resulting lack of opera-
tional envelope as compared to operations on a normal drilling rig. Whipstock system selection was
critical to ensure that the high flexibility needed to operate in such limited environment was possible.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEAPDT/proceedings-pdf/14APDT/All-14APDT/SPE-170487-MS/1480460/spe-170487-ms.pdf/1 by LUIS JORIGUA on 03 March 2024

Finally, well organized logistics were crucial to being able to successfully carry out the casing exit
operations on these wells. The successful completion of this project marks a significant milestone in the
remediation of older producing wells, and proved to be a cost-effective solution for offshore re-entry
needs. This strategy has successfully increased production in this field facilitating the economical
development of remaining reserves.

Nomenclature
BHA ⫽ Bottom Hole Assembly
GPM ⫽ Gallons per Minute
PPG ⫽ Pound per Gallon
WOM ⫽ Weight on Mill
DP ⫽ Drill Pipe
HWDP ⫽ Heavy Weight Drill Pipe
DC ⫽ Drill Collar
MWD ⫽ Measurement While Drilling
SBM ⫽ Synthetic Oil Base Mud
ROP ⫽ Rate of Penetration
RPM ⫽ Revolutions per Minute
NPT ⫽ Non-Productive Time
TD ⫽ Total Depth
MD ⫽ Measured Depth

Acknowledgement
The authors wish to thank Weatherford management for their support and permission to publish this paper.

References
1. HoggC., BarkerR., Penangos Juan, LeonR., Weatherford; GandaraC., PradaE., ChipatecuaP.,
RuedaH., HocolS.A.; “Milling Low- Side Casing Exit Windows in Horizontal Wells: A Case
Study”, paper IADC/SPE-150347-PP presented at IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibi-
tion, San Diego, California, USA, March 2012.
2. YunusF., DufourJ., RipayreA, Mercier,M. SuroC., SredensekE.; “A Unique Experience of Using
Hydraulic Workover Unit (HWU) for Re-entry and Drilling Operation Onshore Gabon”, paper
SPE/IADC 97373 presented at SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology Conference and
Exhibition, Dubai, U.A.E. September 2005.