SPE-169224-MS

First Sand Clean Out of a HPHT Well on the Norwegian Continental Shelf
Using Rig Assisted Snubbing and Sand Cyclones
Johannes Brähler, SPE, and Anders Groth Helland, SPE, Statoil ASA

Copyright 2014, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Bergen One Day Seminar held in Grieghallen, Bergen, Norway, 2 April 2014.

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 have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of 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 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract
The Kvitebjørn field is located in the Norwegian North
Sea – production is based on gas/condensate bearing
reservoir formations. The reservoir/field is classified as
high pressure high temperature (HPHT). The main field
development is centered on a steel jacket platform with
combined production, drilling and quarters facilities
(pictured).
This paper will describe the background, planning,
execution and results of a rig assisted snubbing (RAS)
operation conducted to clean out the production liner in
Kvitebjørn well A-9 T2.
Intial production from well A-9 was significantly below
expectations. At first this was attributed to complications
related to a closed/stuck valve in the bottom of the
completion string. A successful coiled tubing milling
operation eventually removed the blockage caused by the valve but the poor production performance continued. It was
concluded that wellbore fill in the production liner was blocking production and mechanical access to the reservoir section.
Planning was initiated for a wellbore fill cleanout operation and rig assisted snubbing was selected for the task. To ensure a
successful operation a number of significant challenges were overcome including limitations on available experience with the
type of operation, availability of qualified equipment and logistics issues related to other on-going activities on the platform.
Fluid management was also a major consideration for the planning/operations team.
After an intensive planning period the operation was executed successfully in 2013 and the production liner in the well was
cleaned out down to the reservoir section. Additional wireline conveyed perforating could then be performed. Despite these
successful actions production from the well continues to fall below expecations and further remediation activites are being
evaluated.
2 SPE-169224-MS

Introduction
Kvitebjørn is a gas and condensate field that is located in block 34/11 in the Norwegian North Sea. Top reservoir is at a depth
of around 4,000 metre for the Brent Group and 4250 metre for the Statfjord Formation. Reservoir conditions are classified as
HPHT (high pressure high temperature) – 805 bar and 160 deg C respectively.
The A-9 T2 well was drilled as an exploration well/gas
producer at the end of October 2009 and completed in
February 2010. The well is completed primarily as a 7”
‘monobore’ (production tubing and production liner have the
same nominal dimensions). In addition there is a 4½” liner
across the lower reservoir section, Figure 1.
An isolation valve at the bottom of the completion string failed
to open as intended, resulting in a prolonged completion time
and longer than planned formation exposure to the kill pill.
Attempts using wireline/tractor to open the valve failed and so
a tubing punch operation was executed to allow production to
bypass the closed/stuck valve via the tubing annulus. The well
was put on production on the 8th of March 2010 but the
production rate fell rapidly.
Several attempts were made to increase the production rate
including a successful coiled tubing operation(1) in 2011 to mill
through the stuck isolation valve. This operation did result in a
restriction in the pass through diameter of the well compared to
the original monobore design. Despite restoring the flowpath
through the valve the production rate did not improve
significantly. Further investigation (including running a drift
and sample bailer on wireline), diagnosis and interpretation
indicated that the wellbore production liner was most likely Fig 1: Well schematic
filled with debris up to 600 metre over the top perforation
(although a liner collapse could not be ruled out). Planning for a wellbore cleanout operation was initiated and rig assisted
snubbing (RAS) was selected for the task.
The operation presented several significant challenges for the operations team. RAS operations are relatively infrequent in
Norway and such operations under HPHT conditions had never previously been executed in the country. As a result limited
directly relevant experience was to hand. Furthermore, the well control and solids separation equipment that was required, to
handle the potential maximum operation pressure level, had long delivery times and was not readily available. Additional
issues arose due to upgrading/maintenance activities on-going on the platform which posed challenges of limited space
availability for both equipment and personnel related to the planned RAS operation.
Fluid management was an important aspect of the operation planning and execution. A single disposal well was available for
produced water and any slop/waste produced by the intervention operation. It was of significant concern that the activities on
A-9 should not disrupt use of the disposal well for on-
going production operations from the other wells. The use
of sand cyclones to remove debris, a temporary test
separator to remove gas/condensate and a de-gassing
vessel to remove gas remnants facilitated the ‘recycling’
of the brine used for the RAS operation and avoided
having to inject it into the disposal well.
The A-9 well was successfully cleaned out using a motor
and mill to 7,109 metres measured depth (4,476 metres
true vertical depth). The reservoir section was then re-
perforated using wireline conveyance.

Intervention method selection

A feasibility study was carried out to determine
intervention options both short term and long term based
Fig 2: Project Milestones
on the assumption that the blockage in the well was due
SPE-169224-MS 3

to large amounts of sand and debris (or possibly a collapsed liner).

Coiled tubing is normally the first option considered for this type of cleanout
operation in a live well (with predicted large amounts of debris to be
removed). Based on technical analysis and experience from the previous
coiled tubing operation on the well it was concluded that, for the liner
cleanout operation, the combined operational parameters (pressures, depth,
cleanout circulation rates) would exceed the capabilities of coiled tubing
solutions available to planning team. In particular the required depth and
circulation rates for this cleanout were significantly greater than for the
previous coiled tubing milling operation.
A dilemma with selecting coiled tubing for use in HPHT wells with large
completion diameters is that the design to withstand high pressures (smaller
diameters, heavier walls) is often contrary to the desire to select larger
diameter solutions to achieve satisfactory hydraulic (motor/circulation)
performance. Larger diameter coiled tubing strings with the required length
for this operation would also present logistics challenges for offshore
transport to the Kvitebjørn platform (ie. relative to crane capacities). In
addition, in this case if feasible, custom coiled tubing strings (primary and
backup) would be required which would increase the logistics and cost
burden on this (effectively one-off) operation.
In conclusion snubbing conveyance was chosen as the most feasible
technique for performing the operation. Since vertical well access on
Kvitebjørn is only possible via the drilling rig the obvious choice was rig
assisted snubbing. In any case free standing snubbing solutions to meet local
regulations are not currently available in Norway (related primarily to pipe
handling considerations). Detailed planning for the operation began in
January 2013.

Operation planning
As mentioned in the introduction this was the first operation for Statoil with
RAS at such elevated pressure and temperature. Fortunately there was
experience available from the previous coiled tubing operation on the well
and a great deal of the learnings from that operation could be adapted during
planning of the snubbing activity. In general the lack of direct experience was
handled by having a particularly strong focus on risk analysis with peer
review and other follow up as required from within and outside the Statoil
organization. Utilising suppliers experiences to their fullest was an important
aspect of the operation planning.
Coordination with other stakeholders in the Kvitebjørn platform/process
operations was also of key importance – especially so with the parallel on-
going activities related to production equipment commissioning and drilling
rig annual turnaround.

HPHT Design Considerations

Well A-9 is the only well situated in the eastern segment of the Kvitebjørn
field and consequently limited production/reservoir information was
available. As a result the Statfjord formation reservoir pressure estimate was
subject to considerable uncertainty – the estimate provided to the planning
team was in the range of 400 to 805 bar. In order to take a conservative
approach a reservoir pressure of 805 bar was assumed. The corresponding
maximum surface pressure was 670 bar. These pressure regimes require that
the surface pressure control equipment would have a corresponding minimum
working pressure – the most commonly available specification being 1035
bar / 15,000 psi working pressure (hereafter referred to as 15k). After careful Fig 3: Well control stack
risk evaluation it was decided to use 10,000 psi (10k) equipment above the
gate valve, since this part of the stack is not exposed to full well pressure with the pressure containment principles in place.
4 SPE-169224-MS

Primary barrier dynamic seals:

Three separate systems for creating a dynamic pressure seal around the snubbing pipe were included in the well control stack -
a stripper rubber rated for 3,000 psi, a stripping annular rated for 5,000 psi and stripper rams rated for the full working pressure
of the system. The strategy for the operations phase would be to operate as much as possible with either the stripper rubber or
stripper annular with the stripper rams as a contingency option if the surface pressure could not be maintained within the rating
of the stripping annular. In order to maintain an operating surface pressure within the desired range the well would be filled
with a circulation fluid with sufficient density to ‘suppress’ the surface pressure.

Secondary barrier shear/seal:

Statoil internal requirements for HPHT live well intervention operations indicate that the shear/seal function closest to the well
(safety head) should be tested with gas for equipment with 15k or greater rating. At the time of planning this operation it was
not possible to source a 15k gas tested shear seal ram capable of cutting the 3½” pipe to be used. It was therefore decided to
include a gate valve in the stack above the available shear seal ram as a compensating measure (see figure 3) – this solution
had been adopted for the previous coiled tubing operation.

Choke system, desander and temporary flowback equipment:

Since there is no permanent test separator onboard the platform and a significant amount of returned sand/solids was expected
(up to 700 metre sand plug in well), dynamic gas desanders (cyclones) were used to remove solids from the return flow. Most
cyclones are based on the centrifugal principle and can only handle a limited amount of gas. The dynamic particle separator
type chosen for this operation is more capable of handling gas (liquid gas, condensate or standard gas streams) and removing
large amounts of solids. It contains a tank that is equipped with an inlet opening with a downwardly directed conical shape for
the gas stream and two outlet openings for export of gas and particles(2).
The majority of the solids would be removed by the cyclones and a temporary separator was included to enhance the recovery
of the working fluid. It was not feasible to only use a conventional separator for separation of solids, fluids and gas, due to
space available onboard the platform, volume of returned fluid and expected amount of solids to be lifted out of the well. The
pressure rating of the available cyclones was 5,000 psi (5k) and they could consequently not handle the full potential well
pressure. Therefore high pressure double chokes had to be developed and tested to reduce the upstream pressure. The
connection to the platform production system was done with super duplex piping with metal to metal seals.

Working fluid:
The circulation fluid for the operation would have to provide sufficient flexibility to handle the possible range of pressures that
may be encountered as well as
inhibit hydrates and provide
sufficient particle suspension. A
base fluid of potassium formate was
selected with a specific gravity of
1.5 SG. This fluid could be diluted
down to 1.25 SG as required. In
addition a 1.06 SG mix of 50/50
freshwater/MEG was planned for.
For kill contingency purposes 2.05
SG caesium formate brine was
available onboard the installation.
The fluid processing system was
designed such that by removing
solids early in the return stream it
would be possible to re-use the
majority of the fluid (see figure 4).
As previously mentioned this was
important in order to minimize any
implications for the single waste
disposal well available at the
installation.
Fig 4: Circulation sketch
SPE-169224-MS 5

Workstring
A tapered string of 3½” and modified (reduced OD on tooljoints) 27/8” nominal diameter tubing with double seal and gas tight
connections was used. The pipe material grade was P110, pipe weight 12,95 lb/ft for 3 ½” and 8,7 lb/ft for 27/8” tubing. PH6
threads had to be used since a sufficient amount with more rigid threads (e.g. Hydril 553) was not available.
The string was tapered with reduced diameter at the bottom in order to increase the available pick-up weights and also to allow
access through the restriction arising from the previously milled valve at the bottom of the completion as well as entry into the
4½” liner.
Using this pipe with the fully automated pipe handling/running system on the Kvitebjørn drilling unit (normally used with
more robust 4½” IF connections) presented some concerns during the operation planning and was flagged as a specific focus
point for the operations phase. No derrick modifications were necessary to rack back 3 ½” stands but 27/8” pipe could not be
racked back and had to be laid down as single joints between the runs.

Execution Phase
In order to overcome some of the logistical challenges on the platform a dedicated boat, with 1000 square metre deck capacity,
was used to alleviate space limitations during mobilization/demobilisation and rigging of the equipment. This allowed non-
essential items to be backloaded when no longer required on board the platform to free up space.
A detailed test program was used for pressure testing the equipment to minimise the total sum of pressure tests and at the same
time taking into consideration the various system working pressures. The lower well control stack and the high pressure
chokes were rated to higher pressures (15k), than the upper stack and the majority of the lines (10k). The cyclones and
production lines had to be tested separately (5k), as well as the low pressure temporary well testing equipment.
The first phase of the well operation was a pump and bleed operation to fill the well with 1.25 SG brine with the intention of
reducing the surface pressure sufficiently to allow use of the stripper rubber as the primary dyamic pressure seal. Due largely
to poor injectivity in the well (also experienced on the previous coiled tubing operation) this was only partially successful - the
surface pressure was reduced enough to be able to begin the operation with the stripping annular but not with only the stripper
rubber. Stripper rams were not used during tripping since initial reservoir pressure was not encountered and the high fluid
weight allowed the wellhead pressure to be reduced to an acceptable level.

Cleanout run #1
In the first clean out run, the previous wireline tag depth (6,339 mMD) was encountered. From this point it was possible to
wash down easily through a number of short ‘bridges’ of fill inside the 7” liner to 7,050 mMD - at the top of 4½” liner. A total
of 35 kg of sand and steel (from the previous valve milling operation) was recovered in the cyclone separator. Additional
amounts of solids were recovered from the horizontal separator and degasser at the end of the operation (cumulative over both
runs). There was no significant increase in the surface pressure after milling/cleaning past the perforations in the 7” liner. It
was therefore decided to circulate the well to the 1.06 SG working fluid (water/MEG mix) since that would be sufficient to
suppress the surface pressure – based on the actual experienced parameters.

Cleanout run #2
On the final snubbing run the 4.5 inch liner was cleaned first by washing and then by milling at increasing depths. The total
amount of solids recovered in the dynamic cyclone was 25 kilogram. The recovered material was mainly steel, possibly
indicating that the 4.5” liner was collapsed at the tag depth. Once again no significant pressure increase was observed when
cleaning through the lower perforations. The well was successfully cleaned out to 7,109 mMD.

Wireline/tractor work
A multi-finger caliper run was conducted to inspect the liner and the tubing. The results supported the theory that the lower
section of the 4.5” liner had failed due to buckling/collapse.
The production liner was re-perforated over several sections but no change to surface pressure was observed.

Production outcome
Despite successfully gaining clear access to the production interval and re-perforating a number of zones the post treatment
production from the well did not improve significantly from earlier results.
After eight weeks of production, the well was still producing brine injected during the operations.
6 SPE-169224-MS

Lessons Learned

• Thread damage (necessitating a recut) was experienced on approximately 15% of the pipe connections respectively.
This is actually favourable in comparison to other snubbing operations experience in the company.
• Practical experience running the 3½” and 27/8”workstring with the automatic pipe handling sytem on the drilling unit
was generally satisfactory but some delays in the operation were experienced.
• The strategy using the the dynamic cyclone solids removal units proved effective and disruptions to the platform
production process were avoided. In addition the expensive circulation fluid was successfully recovered for re-use.
• Careful planning with particular focus on risk analysis and follow up can compensate for a lack of experience with a
particular type of operation.
• A review of equipment procurement strategy is required to evaluate how the local area may be supplied with suffient
size and rating of qualified equipment for this type of operation while providing reasonable lead times.

Nomenclature
BHA Bottom Hole Assembly
BOP Blow-Out Preventer
CT Coiled Tubing
HPHT High Pressure High Temperature
ID Inside Diameter
LPM Liter Per Minute
MD Measured Depth
MEG Mono Ethylene Glycol
NCS Norwegian Continental Shelf
OD Outside Diameter
POOH Pull Out Of Hole
RAS Rig Assist Snubbing
RIH Run In Hole
SIWHP Shut-In Well Head Pressure
TVD True Vertical Depth
WHP Well Head Pressure

References
1. Ridene, M., Stragiotti, S., Holst, T.K., Baardsen, J. and Effiong, G. 2012. First Successful HP/HT Coiled Tubing
Milling Job in the Norwegian Continental Shelf Deployed With Telemetry: Kvitebjoern Case Study and Lessons
Learned. Paper SPE 154433-MS presented at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing & Well Intervention Conference and
Exhibition, The Woodlands, Texas, 27-28 March. www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=SPE-
154433-MS#

2. Arefjord, A.M. 2013. Dynamic particle separator. International (PCT) Patent No. PCT/NO2013/050001.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Statoil ASA, Petoro AS, Centrica Energi, Enterprise Oil Norway, Total E&P Norge AS, KCA
Deutag Well Service (RAS) and DWC AS (Sand Cyclones) for their permission to publish this paper.