AADE-07-NTCE-31

Pushing the Envelope with Coil Tubing Drilling

C. L. Brillon, ConocoPhillips Canada; R. S. Shafer, ConocoPhillips Company and A. A. Bello, Schlumberger

Copyright 2007, AADE

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 AADE National Technical Conference and Exhibition held at the Wyndam Greenspoint Hotel, Houston, Texas, April 10-12, 2007. This conference
was sponsored by the American Association of Drilling Engineers. The information presented in this paper does not reflect any position, claim or endorsement made or implied by the American
Association of Drilling Engineers, their officers or members. Questions concerning the content of this paper should be directed to the individuals listed as author(s) of this work.

Abstract
Coil tubing drilling in the western Canadian sedimentary
basin has revolutionized the shallow gas drilling market.
Although coil tubing drilling has brought significant
improvements to this area, there are limitations. These
limitations include depth of penetration, vertical control in
problematic deviation areas, and directional drilling. With
increased pressure to reduce drilling cost, coil tubing drilling can
be an economic advantage for both directional wells and drill
depths over 1500m.
With emerging advances in coil tubing drilling rig depth
capacity, these typical shallow gas depths can be pushed past
1500m. Pushing coil tubing drill depths past 1500m has specific
challenges with regard to directional control and directional
drilling. For a large infield development well program, economic
advantages can be achieved with coiled tubing drilling if the
correct geological properties exist.
Directional drilling with coil tubing is not a new technology,
but has typically been limited in open hole size. When applying
coil tubing drilling and rotary steerable technology, open hole
advantages include an increase in hole size and a reduction in the
overall tortuosity of the well bore. Development fields with both
oil and gas wells require a larger open hole size for an effective
completion program.
This paper presents the challenges encountered in the
project from the basic conceptual design, through the detailed
engineering phase, to the execution of applying coil tubing
drilling with rotary steerable technology for both directional
drilling and directional control. The project objectives
incorporate an overall decrease in rig operation days. The
primary factors incorporated to achieve this are: mobilization, rig
up and down operations, drilling while surveying, tool
communication while drilling, and elimination of slide drilling.

wells. ConocoPhillips has seen success with the CTD and

embarked on a program to extend CTD deeper. The deeper
CTD has the potential to reduce drilling costs in western
Canada and learnings can be applied to other basins
worldwide.
The purpose of this paper is to conduct a detailed analysis
and determine the success, failures, and key learnings from
two, three-well CTD projects. Deviation control was deemed
as the most significant issue with taking CTD deeper and
extending into other basins. The first project involved proving
directional drilling with coil tubing and rotary steerable BHA
(RSS BHA). The second project involved coil tubing drilling
past 2000m, utilizing learnings from the first project to control
well deviation. Both projects utilized Hybrid Coil Tubing
Drilling rigs. Pictures of the hybrid rigs used in this project are
shown in figure 1, 2, and 3.
Hybrid CTD rigs are effective for three main reasons in
the basin: high penetration rate, quick mobilization, and rig up
and rig down time. The western Canadian sedimentary basin is
a relatively fast drilling environment. As the rate of
penetration is increased, off bottom time will have a
significant impact on a drilling program. The inherent
advantage with CTD, in comparison to conventional drilling
rigs, is that no time is required to make drill pipe connections.
Off bottom time is defined as any time when drilling
operations have stopped due to connection time or surveying
when directional drilling. Figure 4 compares Effective ROP
and On Bottom ROP when accounting for off bottom time.
When drilling with a high rate of penetration, off bottom
time will become a significant factor over the course of the
well. For conventional drilling rigs, typical off bottom times
can range from four to six minutes. In Figure 4, an on bottom
ROP of 120 m/hr with connection time included would result
in an effective ROP of 60 m/hr (assumed off bottom time for
each connection at 5min).

Introduction
The western Canadian energy market has been subjected
to an increasing cost environment. Maintaining a constant well
cost or reducing well costs are a continual challenge. Coil
Tubing Drilling (CTD) using Hybrid Rigs has been a major
factor in controlling drilling costs for shallow oil and gas

As the formation becomes harder and the rate of

penetration drops, the CTD advantage is reduced. In Figure 4
for on bottom ROP of 50 m/hr, with connection time included,
will result in an effective ROP of 35 m/hr (assumed off bottom
time for each connection at 5min). In a directional application,
where longer survey and connection time are prevalent, on

C. L. Brillon, R. S. Shafer, A. A. Bello

bottom ROP of 50 m/hr with connection time and survey time

included will result in a effective ROP of 27 m/hr (assumed
off bottom time for each connection at 10 min). When drilling
in harder rock, the CTD develops an additional advantage in a
direction drilling application if surveying while drilling is
accomplished.
Another factor that requires consideration is that CTD
ROP will be proportional to the RPM of the bit. In a hard rock
drilling environment with a downhole motor, a conventional
rotary drilling rig will have a surface rotation advantage. The
additional surface rotation will ultimately generate a higher
ROP for a conventional rotary drilling when compared to a
CTD rig.
The diagram in Figure 5 shows a direct comparison
between a coil tubing rig and a conventional drilling rig. As
illustrated by Figure 5, a significant improvement can be
achieved by the elimination of connection time. Another
significant advantage of coil tubing is that connections are
eliminated during trips. Pumping during wiper trips will
eliminate any swabbing affect that could pose a potential
problem.
Another factor that makes Hybrid Coil Tubing Drilling
(HCTD) rigs effective is cutting cost by reducing mobilization
time and rig up time. HCTD rigs are designed to decrease rig
up time and reduce manual labor. It is common for a HCTD
rig to drill two shallow gas wells per day during summertime
operations.
In general, the HCTD has a positive impact on HSE. The
design changes have incorporated many automated features
reducing personal contact with equipment and creating both a
quicker and safer work environment. Another factor that
improves the work environment is the elimination of
connections and rotating equipment on the rig floor during
drilling or tripping operations.
Disadvantages associated with HCTD rigs are the size and
weight of the drilling carrier. A typical configuration of a
HCTD rig will have the mast and coil tubing mounted on a
single carrier, which could create weights in excess of
90,000kg. In many cases road restrictions will require the coil
tubing reel to be removed for rig moves. Drilling contractor
rig designs vary, and one particular design does incorporate a
separated mast and coiled tubing unit as separate rig loads.
The disadvantage to this design is the additional time required
to switch from conventional drilling to coil tubing drilling
mode.
Another disadvantage associated to CTD is the restriction
on pipe rotation. The problems associated with restricted pipe
rotation will typically be a factor during directional drilling
applications, where pipe drag becomes an issue, or in stuck
pipe situations.

AADE-07-NTCE-31

Coil Tubing Directional Drilling BHA Selection

The most significant issue in drilling deeper with coil is
directional control, which are required in a significant number
of deeper wells.
Directional drilling with coiled tubing is not a new
technology; however, a significant number of limitations exist
with the current coiled tubing directional BHAs that are
available in todays market. A major limitation to directional
drilling with coiled tubing is the size of open hole that can be
drilled, typically limited to less than 159mm. Open hole size
limitation is typically a function of the coil tubing size and the
size of the orientation tool required to control the direction of
the bent motor assembly.
Various directional drilling methods were reviewed for this
drilling project. Rotary steerable was chosen as the method
with the most long-term potential to extend coil tubing deeper
and reduce drilling times. The reasons for this decision were:

Tool communication and directional survey while

drilling
Equipment availability for hole sizes 159mm and
larger
Standard convention drilling BHA, increased
availability and reliability
No off bottom time required to orient tool, compared
to ratchet type orienter
No difficulties in orienting BHA due to hole drag
No complicated surface system to control wireline
orienter
Reduction in hole tortuosity, elimination of slide
drilling
Improved ROP by maintaining full WOB

The RSS BHA used is simpler to operate than other

systems. The tool uses mud actuated pads to deviate the
direction of drilling by pushing against the formation.
Operationally, the tool can be run either as a stand alone or in
combination with MWD/LWD tools with real time
communications to the surface.
Communication with the tool is achieved by lowering and
raising the mud flow rate to specific values for specific time
periods in a defined sequence. These coded pulses are detected
by the tool and the new steering setting is activated. RSS BHA
The feature of downlink at any time telemetry allows the user
to change the settings of the tool while it is downhole, without
cycling the pumps.
During this communication sequence, which may require
up to 15 min, the rotary steerable will be in neutral mode.
Therefore, control drilling may be required until the survey
confirms the reception of the order. This communication

AADE-07-NTCE-31

Pushing the Envelope with Coil Tubing Drilling

sequence virtually eliminates off bottom time.

Overall, the RSS BHA increases ROP because there is no
downtime to take surveys or communicate with the tool. The
HCTD drilling does not make connections, which also
contributes to a major elimination of off bottom time.
The RSS BHA on coil uses the same equipment as
conventional drilling so research and design for conventional
drilling equipment can be applied to CTD. Therefore, any
conventional directional drilling assembly that can be used in
a coiled tubing direction drilling application will have a
significant advantage.
Part 1: Coil Tubing Directional Drilling Program
Engineering and Well Planning
The field subject to this study is a typical sweet shallow
gas field found in the western Canadian sedimentary basin.
These wells target the Belly River formation and vary from
650-800mTVD. Complex surface locations will typically
dictate whether the hydrocarbon target can be reached with a
vertical well or if a directional well is required.
A typical directional well profile is designed as a simple
build and hold, as shown in figure 6. The targeted formation is
relatively shallow and does not allow for more complex
directional paths such as an S shape, resulting in the
formation intersected at a high inclination. The directional
parameters are limited to 5/30m DLS to a maximum
inclination of 45. If these directional limits are exceeded, the
time required to drill the well and potential hole problems
decrease well economics.
A pre-job risk assessment was conducted in order to
review offset problems on the area, anticipate issues during
the operation, and prepare an action plan to mitigate those
issues. A complete risk assessment summary can be found on
the Table 1 over the appendix section.
The relatively low production rates for these wells do not
require complex completions resulting in a simple drilling
program. The 177.8mm surface casing will be set at ~100m
where 156mm will be drilled to a depth of ~800m, and
114.3mm casing will be run in hole and cemented. Typically
these wells require only cased hole logs, as the production
from these wells are gas and do not have a water contact zone.
The well depths and casing requirements for these wells
are within the limitations of the HCTD rigs available in the
western Canadian market. The drilling rig chosen for this
drilling application is capable of 1500m of 88.9mm coiled
tubing and 1200m of 88.9mm jointed pipe. This rig also has a
fully automated pipe arm and pipe handling systems. The mud
pump available on this rig has the capability to pump against
high pressure associated with the coil tubing reel and the

directional drilling assembly. In addition to the drilling

advantages, the rig weight loads were reduced because the coil
tubing unit was separated from the mast and carrier. A photo
of the HCTD rig is shown in Figure 1 and 2.
The directional drilling BHA required 120.6mm BHA to
drill 156mm open hole. The selected RSS BHA was capable
of having a mud motor separating the rotary steerable tool
from the directional survey equipment. The RSS BHA
schematic is shown in figure 7. The directional survey
equipment would also require automatic surveys sent to
surface to achieve survey while drilling. One disadvantage of
this configuration is the absence of real time connection with
the tool, to be able to verify the receptions of orders or
downlinks.
Combining RSS directional drilling assembly and coiled
tubing has the potential to decrease drilling time and
ultimately reduce the overall drill cost per well. There was no
guaranteed success for the project, because coiled tubing and
RSS directional drilling had not been successfully deployed
before. The previous experience with this BHA configuration
involved many successful drilling runs on conventional jointed
pipe applications.
The objectives for the drilling program are as follows:
Obtain accurate directional surveys while drilling.
Establish tool communication during drilling operations.
Directional assembly capable of producing 5.0/30m
Coil Tubing Directional Drilling Program Review
CoP 100 DD 10-1
The directional profile was designed with a 2.0/30m build
rate until an inclination of 20 where the tangent section
would reach the hydrocarbon target at a MD of 740m.
The RSS BHA successfully function tested on surface and
ran in hole. When the kick off point was reached, directional
inclination could not be achieved. The RSS BHA was tripped
out of the hole and the well was drilled with a conventional
directional jointed pipe drilling assembly.
Data transfer was made from the RSS BHA and
determined that the BHA did not accept any attempt for
directional communication. The problem was determined to be
incorrect pump liner sizing, which resulted in an incorrect
flow rate for tool communication and caused the failure in
communication.
CoP et at 102 DD 16-25
The second well in the project was designed with a
directional profile similar to the first well. Once the liner size
problem was found and correct flow through the BHA was
achieved for communication, the RSS BHA was capable of

C. L. Brillon, R. S. Shafer, A. A. Bello

producing build rates of 6-7/30m, which were above the

required build rates for the directional design. The well was
successfully drilled to TD.
CoP et al 100 DD 2-33
The final well of the project required a slightly more
aggressive build section 5.0/30 m to an inclination of 43.
The learnings from the first well indicate that both
communication downlinks and surveys can be successfully
made during drilling operations. The attempts for this well
was to increase the rate of penetration by drilling with high
differential pressure across the motor and with a better
knowledge of the RSS BHA build tendencies throughout the
formations encountered.
The RSS BHA could not achieve an increase in inclination
at the kick off point. When the RSS BHA was inspected on
surface, the pads required for directional control were found to
be very tight potentially indicating that failure had occurred
during the run. The final well was directionally drilled with a
conventional directional jointed pipe drilling assembly.
Coil Tubing Directional Drilling Program Discussion
The result was that only one of the three wells were drilled
utilizing coil tubing, and the remaining two were drilled using
conventional directional drilling equipment. The successful
well drilled with coiled tubing met all objectives set out in the
initial stages of the program. This test proved RSS BHA can
be successfully used on coil to drill shallow directional wells.
It also illustrated the improvement in drilling time for both
CTD and RSS.
In the previous discussion, including figure 4, HCTD rigs
can offer a significant advantage over drilling with a
conventional drilling rig. Figure 6 illustrates the time required
to drill out of surface casing to the total depth of the well. All
three wells were drilled maintaining constant drilling
parameters (mud, rig, bit motor speed, etc.). The only
significant difference is that the first well was vertical, to show
a relative comparison to directional drilling time requirements.
As shown in figure 6, the coil tubing directional drilling
time curve can be significantly improved over conventional
directional drilling by approximately 30%. Another
comparison that can be made is coil tubing directional drilling
and coil tubing vertical drilling. As illustrated in figure 6, the
coil tubing directionally drilled well has a similar time curve.
Optimizing drilling parameters for the RSS BHA could further
decrease directional drilling curves similar to vertical wells
drilled with coiled tubing.
Part 2: Drilling Deep Vertical with Coil Tubing

AADE-07-NTCE-31

The rig selection was based on matching the rig

capabilities with the drilling requirements. The drilling
contractor and rig specifications chosen had the advantage of
88.9mm coil tubing, which offered favorable internal and
external hydraulics and increased coil tubing force capacities
when drilling 159mm or 200mm open hole sizes. The rig
depth capacity was 2200m with either 88.9mm coil tubing or
101.6mm jointed pipe. The mud pump available on this rig has
the capability to pump against high pressure associated with
the coil tubing reel and the directional control drilling
assembly.
The BHA design was to deploy enough drill collars to
ensure that the coil tubing was always in tension and the
weight applied to the bit was only supplied from the drill
collars. Another challenge was designing a BHA that would
minimize or correct for deviation, if encountered, during
drilling operations. Two possible solutions where chosen:
implement the use of drop bit technology or the use of RSS
BHA tools to correct for deviation.
Drop bit technology has been used successfully on
conventional rigs drilling 200 mm open hole size, although
there was no offset data regarding the success of the 159mm
open hole size and limited offset research with a coil tubing
application. The directional control BHA is similar to the
BHA configuration used during the trials in July 2006. The
success of the Coil Tubing Directional Drilling Program
proved the RSS technologys application for a coiled tubing
drilling program.
Offset drilling records indicated that previous mud systems
have been a standard gelled chemical system. For the initial
coil tubing project the plan was to utilize a polymer mud
system which offered additional formation inhibition, over a
traditional gelled chemical mud system. The additional
inhibition, along with eliminating the flocculated water
section, would better protect the formation from fluid invasion
and increase the probability of success during open hole
logging operations.
The objectives for the Vertical Project were set as follows:
Establish successful coil tubing drill depth past 1500m
Provide effective deviation control
Decrease overall drilling time
Well BRC HTR V 8-4
Detailed offset well drilling records for wells within 1.5km
of the proposed well were available. The drilling records did
not indicate deviation problems; however these wells were
drilled with slick drilling assemblies utilizing tri-cone insert
bits so no deviation problems were expected. If deviation did
prove to be a concern, the drop bit technology or a RSS
vertical control BHA would be a contingency plan.

Engineering and Well Planning

Bit selection was chosen based on past experience with

AADE-07-NTCE-31

Pushing the Envelope with Coil Tubing Drilling

CTD operations in the area of this study. The bit selected had
very few deviation problems with coil tubing drilling while
maintaining high ROP. The bit nozzle configuration had five
fixed nozzles and three adjustable nozzles. The total flow area
was too high to optimize hydraulics, and nozzle selection was
not designed for hydraulic optimization.

drill was able to supply over 4,500 ft-lbs of torque at a reduced

flow rate of 750l/min. At this reduced flow rate, high viscosity
sweeps are required to ensure that adequate hole cleaning
occurs. Once the deviation was corrected, the pump rate was
increased and the drop bit was operated under the standard
PDC operating conditions.

Operational Review BRC HTR V 8-4

The operating conditions of the drop bit required a

threshold of both WOB and differential pressure. If the WOB
was too low the bit could not correct for deviation, if the
weight on bit was too high the bit would deviate. The drilling
parameters that proved to be successful were ~4,000-4,500
kPa differential pressure and ~8,000 daN - 9,000 daN.

The first survey was taken 50m below the shoe. The
inclination had climbed to 3.25 and within 100m had climbed
to 4.5. The approach used to solve this problem was to utilize
drop bit technology. The drilling parameters with this bit
require a slow RPM (80-100 rpm) and increased WOB (8,000
daN-12,000 daN). In order to meet these drilling parameters a
low speed high torque motor was required. A thin/even-walled
motor was utilized for this particular application. During
drilling operations differential pressure was used as an
indicator of weight transmitted to the bit. When drilling
resumed, the deviation began to drop immediately and
corrected back to 1 inclination by 770m.
High WOB was maintained by maximizing the differential
pressure to the point of motor stall. When maximizing the
differential pressure, too much weight on bit was applied and
eliminated the corrective measure of the drop bit. There
appears to be a threshold where a high WOB is required to
maintain the BHA to drill vertical, although excess WOB
would tend to increase deviation.
The well was TD at 1866m and the wiper trip performed
did not require any back reaming. Only minor reaming was
required when running in the well to condition the wellbore
for logging operations. Open hole logging operations made
two attempts, both of which bridged off immediately under the
shoe. The two primary factors, which resulted in failed open
hole logging attempts were; not achieving desired mud
conditions and the reduced hole size had tighter tolerances
between the tools and the wellbore. After the second logging
attempt, the decision was made to case the well and perform
cased hole logs.
Discussion BRC HTR V 8-4
The offset well research did not indicate deviation
problems, although immediately after drilling 100m into
formation the wellbore deviation increased to 3.25
inclination. The increase in deviation proves that coiled tubing
drilling does have an inherently higher chance of deviation
than rotary drilling even when the CTD BHA is designed to
maintain the coil tubing in tension.
Once deviation had occurred, drop bit technology was
capable of both correcting deviation and controlling deviation
during the drilling operation of the well. The drop bit drilling
parameters required a high torque and low speed motor for
correct operation. The thin/even-walled motor sourced for this

Well CoP 100 V 6-21

The Parkland area research indicated that deviation was a
concern. One offset well required directional tools to correct
the well path in order to reach the geologic target. The
selected method to control deviation was a RSS BHA
designed to correct deviation, the BHA configuration is shown
in Figure 9. The 6-21 well plan had relatively tight tolerance
regarding the geological target and the section gas boundary.
Bit selection required a reduction in the bit size from
159mm to 156mm due to RSS BHA requirements. The bit
chosen had five adjustable nozzles which were designed to
optimize the hydraulic performance of the bit. The bit selected
was successfully utilized during the Coil Tubing Directional
Drilling Program.
Operational Review CoP 100 V 6-21
The surface casing was set at 3.0 inclination and would
require the rotary steerable tools to immediately correct the
well path to vertical. Within drilling 100m of production hole
the inclination built to 4.5. The RSS BHA was tripped out of
the hole and replaced. The first RSS BHA tool was sent back
to the testing facility, where it was found that the BHA
operated as expected without any problems. The second RSS
BHA was tripped in the hole and the deviation continued to
build inclination to 6.3. At this point the decision was made
to control drill until the drop bit was available on location. The
differential pressure across the motor was reduced and the
pump rate increased.
While control drilling the RSS BHA began to correct
deviation, within 200m the wellbore deviation was reduced to
less than 1.0 inclination. The decision was made to increase
ROP by applying additional weight on bit.
The extra weight on bit increased deviation to 2.0. Once
the drill depth reached 1200m, deviation no longer created a
problem. Additional WOB was applied and increased ROP
was achieved. At 1523m the RSS BHA was tripped out of the
hole because deviation was no longer a concern. A slick coil
tubing drilling assembly was tripped into the hole.

C. L. Brillon, R. S. Shafer, A. A. Bello

When tripping out of the hole, reaming operations were

required from 1100m to surface. When tripping in the hole,
slight ream was required from 500-1100 m. Deviation began
to increase; at 1982m the deviation was 4.5 and the well was
TD at 2071m and 5.0 inclination.
The wiper trips for the logging operation did not require
any significant reaming. Logging operations bridged twice,
once at 277m and at 321m. The third logging attempt utilized
tubing conveyed logs. The logging tools reached bottom
without any problems, although the tools did not deploy out of
the tubing and all measurements were rendered useless. The
tool failure was reported as the first of its kind. At this point
casing was run and cased hole logs were supplied to the team.
Discussion CoP 100 V 6-21
Under standard drilling parameters the reaction of the RSS
BHA increased the deviation of the well bore. To decrease
deviation, reduced weight on bit was required until 1200m
was reached. The BHA was further examined and appeared to
have a configuration which created a natural tendency to build
inclination. With increased WOB this correction could not
overcome the natural tendency of the BHA to build angle.
The directional RSS BHA was tripped out hole and a slick
BHA was tripped in to finish the remaining section of the
wellbore from 1550-2050m. When the drilling assembly was
past 1850m, the wellbore began to deviate and the production
casing was landed at 4.5 inclination. The result indicates that
the 120.6mm drill collars are still flexible enough to allow
wellbore deviation.
During tripping operations, tripping out the directional
assembly required additional time due to back reaming out of
the hole. Once the slick drilling assembly was tripped in hole
only slight reaming was required both in and out hole.
Wireline logging operations bridged twice, requiring two
clean out trips. The clean out trips were not successful; the
solution to this problem was to run tubing conveyed logs.
These logs were considered, although reduced log quality
would result and the asset team would only consider tubing
conveyed logs as a contingency. The first time these logs were
run the tools did not deploy and cased hole logs were
employed.
Well CoP 100 V 9-21
The engineering and programming of this well was very
similar in design to the CoP 100 V 6-21. The only difference
was the final formation targeted the Turner Valley. Typically
offset wells do not penetrate the Turner Valley, and current
detailed offset data for drilling performance was not available.
The associated drilling problem for this limestone
formation is the compressive strength of the rock. This

AADE-07-NTCE-31

compressive strength would require at least one bit run and the
use of tri-cone diamond insert bits. Recommendations from bit
supply companies were not conclusive whether the Turner
Valley formation was drillable with PDC bit technology. In
the likely event that a PDC bit could not drill the Turner
Valley, a bit trip was programmed at ~2000m to change for a
tri-cone diamond insert bit.
Operational Review CoP 100 V 9-21
The wellbore geometry along with the casing scheme was
changed for this well. The change was made to mirror the
drilling wellbore geometry that proved successful for logging
operations with the conventional drilling rigs operated in the
area. The production hole size was increased to 200mm which
required a 171.5mm rotary steerable BHA size. The BHA
configuration was changed and an additional stabilizer was
added, as shown in figure 10. The stabilizer was added in an
attempt to increase the rigidity of the RSS BHA. The drilling
assembly was run in the well and built to an inclination of 4.4
in 80 m. The RSS BHA was pulled out of the hole and two
stabilizers were removed from the BHA, as shown in figure
11. The BHA was tripped in hole and it immediately began to
drop inclination and successfully maintained deviation below
1 inclination.
When drilling reached 1780m, the decision was made to
trip the directional control BHA out hole and continue drilling
with a slick BHA. Hole problems occurred during drilling
operations which required two additional bit trips. Offset well
information did not encounter similar problems.
When the Turner Valley formation was encountered the
PDC could not drill into the formation and a bit trip was made.
When the PDC bit was inspected on surface, severe damage to
the cutting structure was observed. The tri-cone bit selected to
drill into the Turner Valley, drilled 63m in 24hrs and was
tripped to surface because of a reduction in ROP. The bit was
inspected on surface and had severe damage and wear. At a
depth of 2140m the well was called TD.
While logging out hole the caliper arms had to be closed
several times to get through collapsed sections of the wellbore.
At 706m the caliper arms mechanically failed and would not
retract, resulting in stuck logging tool. The tools were
successfully retrieved out of the wellbore with a side entry sub
and fishing equipment. The casing was run and cemented
without incident.
Discussion CoP 100 V 9-21
Drilling 200mm open hole size had a significant reduction
in ROP when compared to 156mm. Such a dramatic drop of
ROP has not previously been experienced with coiled tubing
drilling in other areas. The mud system was also changed from
a Polymer to a Gel-Chem system. The previous two wells did
not have conclusive evidence that the Polymer Mud system

AADE-07-NTCE-31

Pushing the Envelope with Coil Tubing Drilling

was an advantage, and the conventional drilling rigs have had

good success with a Gel-Chem system. Drilling operations had
encountered more problems during 9-21 when compared to
the previous two wells. The decision to change the mud
system had decreased the drilling performance.
A significant difference that was noticed between the 6-21
well and the 9-21 well was increased stalling during drilling
operations. In addition to increased hole size, a significant
difference between the two wells was an increase in cutter size
from 13mm to 16 mm. In comparison between coil tubing
drilling and conventional rotary drilling, these pressure spikes
are not typically seen during rotary drilling operations.
Thin/even walled motors were not available for the 158.7 mm
size and extended power sections were utilized.
A vertical control drilling assembly, which had previous
problems, had a couple of BHA design changes which were
capable of controlling deviation in a problematic area as a
direct result of the design changes. The success of vertical
rotary steerable BHA has indicated that a correct RSS BHA
configuration has been proven for the 171.5mm BHA size.
Open hole logs were successfully deployed to TD. Due to
a mechanical failure of the retracting caliper arms, the logging
tools became stuck at 700m. Fishing operations were required
to retrieve the wireline logging tools from the wellbore. For
successful open hole logging operations in a geological
problematic area, 200mm open hole is required.
The overall vertical project met two of the three objects set
out at the beginning of the project. The drilling operations
were successful to all three well depths. From the results,
optimizations can be made for future projects. The graphs in
Figure 12, 13, and 14 show a representation of drilling of
production hole as compared to a field best, field average, and
the individual well drill curve. For the 8-4 and 6-21 the drill
curves met the field average. The 9-21 well had 81 hours of
downtime due to problematic geological conditions, resulting
in the longest drill time.
A Verticality correlation graph that includes all the wells
can be found in the Appendix under figure 15.
Conclusions
Coil tubing drilling has proven advantageous in high ROP
environments. This advantage begins to decrease in vertical
applications as harder rock environments are encountered and
ROP begins to decrease. In directional drilling applications a
significant advantage can be achieved even in hard rock
applications if surveying while drilling can be achieved.
Coil tubing is inherently prone to deviation issues and can
be successfully controlled with the application of drop bit
technology or an RSS vertical control drilling assembly. The
disadvantage with drop bit technology is reduced ROP when

compared to a standard PDC design. Additional field testing

and BHA refinement are required for a vertical control RSS
BHA configuration. Motor section for any coil tubing drilling
application should apply the use of thin/even-walled high
torque motors, as stalling is more prevalent with coil tubing
drilling than rotary drilling applications.
Bit selection for coil tubing drilling is fundamental, as an
aggressive PDC bit that historically worked well with rotary
drilling applications would be too aggressive for coiled tubing
drilling applications. Proper PDC bit selections for a CTD
program should, at minimum, include a reduction of cutter
size and potential increase of the PDC blade count. Coil tubing
inherently has less wear and damage on PDC bits than
conventional rotary drilling applications, so control drilling
through formation change is not required.
Upgrading the water based mud system from a Gel-Chem
to a Polymer Mud system can mitigate the problematic
geological properties encountered during the drilling project.
In any coil drilling application, an upgraded mud system
should be reviewed when drilling in problematic geological
areas.
Coil Tubing Drilling had been a revolutionary tool to
shallow gas drilling in the western Canadian sedimentary
basin. The drilling market that has embraced this technology
has been development field drilling with know reserves, rock
geomechanics and has proved easily drillable with
conventional drilling methods. The two projects discussed in
this paper indicate that coil tubing directional drilling can
reduce overall drill time compared to conventional directional
drilling to depths to 800m and coil tubing drilling can
successfully drill to depths of 2000m. The natural progression
for development field drill will be to merge both coil tubing
drilling and rotary steerable directional technology to expand
to development gas field to drill depths of 2000m.
Acknowledgments
The authors of this paper would like to thank the drilling
contractor and field personal for their time and dedication
during drilling operations. We would also like to thank
ConocoPhillips & Schlumberger office staff for their
continued support throughout both challenging projects.
Nomenclature
CTD
RRS
BHA
HCTD
MWD
ROP
RPM
DLS
WOB

= Coil Tubing Drilling

= Rotary Steerable Systems
= Bottomhole Assembly
= Hybrid Coil Tubing Drilling
= Measurements While Drilling
= Rate of Penetration
= Revolutions Per Minute
= Dog Leg Severity
= Weight On Bit

C. L. Brillon, R. S. Shafer, A. A. Bello

References
1.Shafer, R.S.: Step Change in Remote Exploration, SPE/IADC
105051, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, February 20-22, 2007.
2.Bourgoyne A.T., Chenevert M.E., Millheim K.K., Young F.S.:
Applied Drilling Engineering.: SPE Testbook Series Vol.2,
Society of Petroleum Engineers, Ninth Printing 2003.
3.Steve Devereux: Practical Well Planning, PenWell Publishing
Company, 1998, ISBN 0-87814-696-2.
4.Gilles Gabolde, Jean-Paul Nguyen, Drilling Data Handbook,
Eight Edition, Editions Technip, 2006.
5.C. Pratten, Rotary Steerable Systems in the Gulf of Mexico - A
Step Change in Drilling Performance, AADE 01-NC-HO-22,
AADE 2001 National Drilling Conference, Houston, Texas,
March 27 - 29, 2001.
6.F. J. Schuh, P. Herbert, J. Harrell, The New Generation of Rotary
Systems May be Closer Than You Think, AADE-03-NTCE02, AADE 2003 National Drilling Conference and Exhibition,
Houston, Texas, April 1-3, 2003.
7.C. Sidwell, J. Jares, M. Durant, Rotary Steerable in 6 hole Key to

AADE-07-NTCE-31

Economic Wellbores, AADE-03-NTCE-03, AADE 2003

National Drilling Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas,
April 1-3, 2003.
8.C. Lenamond, L. Marques, M. Anderson, S. Mota, Performance
Gains for Rotary Steerable Through Specialized Bit Design,
AADE-05-NTCE-46, AADE 2005 National Drilling
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, April 5-7, 2005.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

in x 2.54*
ft x 3.048*
lbf x 4.4482222
lbm x 4.535924
psi x 6.894757
*conversion factor is exact

E+00 = cm
E+01 = m
E+00 = N
E+01 = Kg
E+00 = kPa

AADE-07-NTCE-31

Appendix

Appendix

Figure 1: HCTD Rig Utilized for the Directional Drilling Program

Figure 2: Hybrid Rig Transition from Conventional Drilling to Coil Drilling

10

C. L. Brillon, R. S. Shafer, A. A. Bello

AADE-07-NTCE-31

Figure 3: HCTD Rig Utilized for the Vertical Drilling Program

Off Bottom Time 0min

140

Off Bottom Time 5min

Off Bottom Time 10min
Off Bottom Time 15min

120

Effective ROP

100

80

60

40

20

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

On Bottom ROP

Figure 4: Effective ROP vs. On Bottom ROP

120

140

AADE-07-NTCE-31

Appendix

11

0
0

0.5

1.5

-200

Depth (m)

-400

-600

-800

-1000

Conventional Rig 1: 10-18-34-25

Conventional Rig 1: 1-6-36-25
Coil Tubing Rig 1: 7-22-35-26

-1200

Coil Tubing Rig 2: 6-27-35-26

Days From Spud

Figure 5: Coil Tubing vs. Conventional Drilling

-50
0
-150

Depth (m)

-250

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

CoP 100 DD 10-1 (Conventional Directional)

CoP et al 102 DD 16-25 (Coil Tubing Directional)
CoP 100 V 1-30 (Vertical)

-350

-450

-550

-650

-750

Days from Drill out of Surface Casing

Figure 6: Coil Tubing vs. Conventional Directional Drilling

0.8

12

C. L. Brillon, R. S. Shafer, A. A. Bello

AADE-07-NTCE-31

120

Proposed TD
Basal Belly River

Projection to TD

<<< S Scale = 1(cm):20(m) N >>>

100

Tie-In

80

60

40

20
Tangent Section 13.23
Surface Casing (177.8mm)

0
50

KOP DLS 2.0/30m

Casing at 86 m
Surface Casing (177.8mm)

100

-20

KOP DLS 2.0/30m

Casing at 86 m

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

20

40

60

<<< W Scale = 1(cm ):20(m ) E >>>

150

Critical Points
MD

INCL

AZIM

TVD

VSEC

N(+) / S(-)

E(+) / W(-)

DLS

Casing at 86 m

86.00

1.20

270.00

86.00

-0.16

-0.23

-0.10

1.49

Projection to TD

738.00

16.00

321.00

720.58

128.06

109.76

-66.61

0.67

Critical Point

200

250

TVD Scale = 1(cm):50(m)

Tangent Section 13.23

300

350

True

Grid
Mag

400

450

Belly River

True North
Tot Corr (M->T +15.7660)
Mag Dec (+15.766)

500

550

Grid Conv ()

Taber Coal

600

650
McKay Coal

700

Basal Belly River

Projection to TD

Lea Park
Proposed TD

750

-100

-50

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Vertical Section (m ) Azim = 332.86, Scale = 1(cm ):50(m ) Origin = 0 N/-S, 0 E/-W

Figure 7: Directional Plan & Actual for COP DD 16

AADE-07-NTCE-31

Appendix

Figure 8: RSS/BHA Schematic

Figure 9: Vertical Control BHA Schematic for COP 100 V 6-21

13

14

C. L. Brillon, R. S. Shafer, A. A. Bello

Figure 10: Vertical Control BHA Design 1 for COP 100 V 9-21

Figure 11: Vertical Control BHA Design 2 for COP 100 V 9-21

AADE-07-NTCE-31

AADE-07-NTCE-31

Appendix

-500

0.5

1.5

15

2.5

3.5

Coil Tubing Rig 2: 08-04-14-26W4

Conventional Rig 2: 05-11-15-27W4
Field Average

-700

Depth (m)

-900
-1100
-1300
-1500
-1700
-1900
-2100
Days From Drilling Out of Surface Casing

Figure 12: Drilling Curve for BHC HTR V 8-4

-500
-700

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

Coil Tubing Rig 2: 06-21-15-26W4

Conventional Rig 2: 05-11-15-27W4

-900

Field Average

Depth (m)

-1100
-1300
-1500
-1700
-1900
-2100
Days From Drilling Out of Surface Casing

Figure 13: Drilling Curve for COP 100 V 6-21

16

C. L. Brillon, R. S. Shafer, A. A. Bello

-500
-700

0.5

1.5

2.5
3
3.5
4
Coil Tubing Rig 2: 09-21-15-26W4
Conventional Rig 2: 05-11-15-27W4
Field Average

-900

Depth (m)

-1100
-1300
-1500
-1700
-1900
-2100
Days From Drilling Out of Surface Casing

Figure 14: Drilling Curve for COP 100 V 9-21

AADE-07-NTCE-31

AADE-07-NTCE-31

Appendix

250

250

17

Surface
Casing

Zone of High Build Tendency

500

500

750

750

Form. 1

Good Run RSS

1000

1000
TVD (m)

Form. 2

1250

1250

Form. 3
CoP 100 V 6-21
CoP 100 V 9-21
BRC HTR 8-4

1500

1500

Form. 4
1750

1750

End of RSS Run

Form. 5

2000

2000

2250

2250
0

-50

Inclination (Deg)

50

100

ROP (m/h)

Figure 15: Verticality Correlation

150

200