SPE 143337

Determination of Optimum N2 Rate for Unloading Gas Wells With Coiled

Tubing
Y. Zhou, SPE, E. Smalley, SPE, S. Opel, NOV CTES

Copyright 2011, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing and Well Intervention Conference and Exhibition held in The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 5–6 April 2011.

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
Unloading gas wells with nitrogen (N2) is one of the most common applications of coiled tubing (CT). The unique feature of
CT unloading, as compared to conventional gas lift, is that the gas injection depth can be changed continuously. Despite the
large number of CT unloading jobs performed annually, the fundamental and frequently-asked questions such as optimum N2
rate and optimum gas injection depth as well as CT run into hole (RIH) speed remain. There are no simple and efficient
methods that can be used to calculate these design parameters.
Unloading a water-loaded gas well with N2 and CT is a dynamic and transient hydraulic process. Before a gas well is
significantly unloaded and the bottomhole pressure (BHP) is reduced significantly below the reservoir pressure, the effect of
the reservoir on the unloading process can be neglected. As far as the simulation of multiphase annulus flow is concerned, the
liquid phase comes solely from the original liquid that loads the well. This paper presents a simulation study focused on the
main factors that affect the hydraulic behavior of the CT unloading process. The optimum N2 pump rate is determined based
on the criterion of minimum BHP. Simulation results indicate that as N2 rate increases, the hydrostatic pressure in the
annulus and BHP decrease significantly. However, further increase of the N2 rate beyond a certain threshold value would
increase the friction pressure loss in the annulus and consequently increase the BHP, especially for gas wells where the
CT/tubing or CT/casing clearance is small. It is found that as gas injection depth increases, the minimum achievable
bottomhole pressure is decreased. Simulation results also indicate that for smaller wellbores where annular friction loss is a
limiting factor, a smaller diameter coiled tubing string may be preferred. The challenges associated with liquid unloading in
large and deviated wellbores are also discussed.

Introduction
Liquid loading is a common problem in many gas wells. The well can be loaded by workover or completion fluids following
a workover or completion job. Wellbores can also be loaded with produced liquid (such as water or hydrocarbon condensate
in the late life of a gas well) when the reservoir pressure has decreased. In either case, the accumulated wellbore liquid needs
to be removed, i.e., the well needs to be unloaded to restore the well’s production. There have been a number of unloading
techniques used for liquid unloading, for example, plunger lift, velocity string, surfactants, intermittent gas lift, swabbing, etc.
(Lea et al., 2003). This paper will focus on unloading of gas wells with coiled tubing. Coiled tubing has been used in various
oilfield services applications. These applications include wellbore solids cleanout, well unloading, hydraulic fracturing,
coiled tubing drilling (CTD), acidizing, and other applications (Coiled Tubing Handbook, 1998). Though coiled tubing
fracturing and coiled tubing drilling have experienced significant growth in recent years, solids cleanout (or fill removal) and
well unloading are still the two most dominant coiled tubing applications.
Using coiled tubing to unload a well with nitrogen is a quick and cost-effective method to remove the liquid load of the
wellbore. During a coiled tubing unloading process, coiled tubing is run into the wellbore. Nitrogen can be pumped through
the coiled tubing while CT is RIH or after CT has reached a certain depth. The nitrogen aerates the liquid column in the
annulus. This reduces the hydrostatic pressure of fluid in the annulus, hence, the downhole pressure is reduced. When the
downhole pressure is lower than the reservoir pressure, the reservoir fluid starts to flow into the wellbore. Since the reservoir
fluid (gas for gas reservoirs) has a lower density than the loading liquid in the wellbore, the produced reservoir fluid helps to
further reduce the bottomhole pressure. When the drawdown pressure is large enough to sustain steady flow from the
reservoir, the pumping of nitrogen can be stopped and the CT can be pulled out of the hole. The well will continue to produce
by itself.
2 SPE 143337

Well unloading by CT conveyed nitrogen circulation operates by the same principle as single-point gas lift. But CT
unloading has its unique features and therefore is more useful and more flexible than conventional gas lift. One of the unique
features of CT unloading is that the gas injection point can be moved up and down along the wellbore, to any desired
injection point. CT unloading can be performed either by continuous N2 injection or by intermittent N2 injection. With the
method of continuous N2 injection, the nitrogen is circulated into the CT while the CT is being run into the wellbore. In the
mode of intermittent N2 injection, CT is first run to a predetermined depth below the liquid level in a wellbore before
initiating N2 pumping.
Misselbrook, et al. (1991) reported their development of a CT simulator that can be used to analyze flow conditions and
tubing force effects. Their paper described some of the concepts used to develop such a CT simulator, its algorithm design,
input parameters, and report features as well as examples of fluid circulation analysis and tubing force analysis. But,
mathematical models and equations used in the simulator are not provided.
Gu and Walton (1994) described a computer wellbore simulator developed for CT operations of fill cleanout and
unloading of oil and gas wells. The simulator modeled the transient, multiphase fluid flow and mass transport process in
these operations. Later, Gu (1995) applied this wellbore simulator to analyze the transient aspects of unloading oil and gas
wells with CT. The effects of CT size and depth, workover fluids, and nitrogen rate and volume on unloading are discussed.
They concluded that the optimum gas injection rate to maximize production depends on the depth of the injection point. On
the other hand, the optimum injection depth depends on the injection rate. This interdependency is due to the combined effect
of the hydrostatic and friction pressures in the gas/liquid two-phase flow.
More recently, Salim and Li (2009) described a transient software model that was developed to study the transient
behavior of liquid unloading process. Multiphase flow tests were conducted. For a given wellbore condition, there is a
minimum gas velocity above which all the liquid can be removed from the wellbore. This critical velocity is a function of
liquid properties, wellbore deviation angle and the downhole pressure. A critical gas velocity model was developed. Later,
Salim et al. (2010) applied this transient multiphase flow software to several field cases to illustrate the transient nature of CT
applications.
Xu et al. (2010) applied a transient multiphase flow software model to a field case study of an unsuccessful well
unloading operation using nitrogen through CT. After simulating and analyzing different scenarios of the unloading process,
they concluded that an effective solution to displace the remaining seawater that was left from the failed unloading job was to
first position the CT deep below the liquid level and then initiate gas injection. They believed that in this manner, liquid
could be effectively lifted out of the wellbore as liquid slugs.
The brief literature survey indicates that even though CT has been widely used in gas well unloading, there is still lack of
adequate understanding of the hydraulic behavior of this unloading process. The objective of this paper to present a
simulation study on the effects of nitrogen injection rate, gas injection depth, CT size, and liquid unloading rate (or CT RIH
speed) on the unloading hydraulics. Challenges in large and deviated wellbores will also be discussed.

Approach of Simulation
A hydraulic simulation software for CT pumping operations was used to simulate the unloading process of gas wells. This
simulation software was developed at NOV CTES. Its main capabilities of hydraulic simulation will be briefly described
below.
To setup a hydraulic simulation project, the flow geometry and fluid distribution must first be defined. The well geometry
is defined in the software model. If well survey data is available, any well geometry can also be accurately specified. The
geometry of the CT string is defined, including data such as CT length, diameter, and various wall thicknesses. The hydraulic
simulation software is then used to perform hydraulic calculations for the various flow paths.
• CT Flow Path: Nitrogen is pumped through this flow path and enters the annulus. This flow path includes both
the straight section of the CT in the wellbore and the coiled section on the reel.
• Annulus Flow Path: this refers to the annular space between the CT and the external tubulars. Nitrogen, after
exiting from the nozzle, mixes with the wellbore liquid and then the mixture flows through this path to surface.
• Well Path: this is the wellbore section from the middle of the reservoir to the gas injection point at the nozzle.
This path is occupied by the wellbore liquid. If the reservoir is producing gas, the produced gas also flows
through this path.
Several multiphase flow models (Gray, 1978; Hagedorn and Brown, 1965; Orkiszewski, 1967; Duns and Ros, 1963;
Beggs and Brill, 1973) have been implemented in the hydraulic simulator. The hydraulic simulator can be run either in the
standard steady-state mode or stage table mode. When in the stage table mode, a pumping schedule can be specified. The
simulator is able to simulate a sequence of pump stages. It keeps track of all the fluid segments in all the flow paths. Output
data includes pressure and velocity profiles along the flow paths, pump pressure, bottomhole pressure and other more
detailed information such as flow regime, liquid holdup, etc. The resulting data can be displayed in tabular form or graphical
format.
During an unloading process of a gas well, the reservoir does not produce until the bottomhole pressure is reduced below
the reservoir pressure. For the upward multiphase flow in the annulus, liquid flow rate comes solely from the initial wellbore
liquid. During this period, as far as the annular multiphase flow is concerned, the initial wellbore liquid behaves like a virtual
SPE 143337 3

liquid (water) reservoir, constantly feeding the upward annular flow with liquid. Apparently, the rate of liquid feeding the
annulus flow is related to the run-in-hole (RIH) speed of the coiled tubing. Therefore, it is hoped that studying the effect of
liquid flow rate (feeding the annulus) would provide some insight into the effect of CT RIH speed on the unloading
hydraulics. The effects of gas injection depth, CT diameter, and nitrogen injection rate on the unloading hydraulics are also
investigated.

Results and Discussion

Effect of N2 Pump Rate on BHP. An example well is used to simulate the effect of N2 pump rate on the effect of
bottomhole pressure during a typical liquid unloading process in gas wells. Fig. 1 shows the well geometry of the example
well. The well is a vertical gas well, with a depth of 11060 ft. The casing is 5 in. in diameter and is set at 11060 ft. The tubing
diameter is 2.875 in. (ID = 2.441 in.) and is set at 10280 ft, with a tubing packer set at 10270 ft. The gas reservoir thickness is
60 ft (from 11000 to 11060 ft). The well was initially loaded with brine fluid, with an initial liquid level of 3980 ft.
A 1.5-in. CT string is used to simulate the well unloading process. The CT string has a length of 13800 ft and a wall
thickness of 0.125 in. The BHA (bottomhole assembly) used for the unloading operation includes a connector and a jetting
nozzle. The hydraulic simulation process involves fluid displacement at various N2 pump rates.
Figure 2 shows a plot of bottomhole flowing pressure vs. nitrogen pump rate. The N2 injection depth (the nozzle tool
depth) was set at 10000 ft. The flowing bottomhole pressure is calculated at the middle of the reservoir, i.e., 11030 ft. A
liquid unloading rate of 6.15 gal/min (this is equivalent to a CT RIH speed of 20 ft/min with 100% liquid lift efficiency, as
will be discussed later) is assumed. Fig. 2 indicates that as N2 pump rate is increased, the bottomhole pressure is first reduced
significantly. This occurs as a result of the nitrogen gas entering the annulus liquid, which reduces its density and therefore
the hydrostatic pressure is decreased. At an N2 rate of about 300 scfm, the bottomhole pressure reaches the minimum value
of about 1949 psi. A further increase of N2 gas rate from 300 scfm will result in increased bottomhole pressure, which is not
the solution that is being sought after. This unexpected result occurs due to increased friction pressure loss at high N2 pump
rates, which more than offsets the decrease in hydrostatic pressure that is achieved with the additional N2 being pumped.
The higher N2 pump rates not only require higher pump pressure, but may also suppress the gas flow from the reservoir.
If the unloading involves removal of workover fluid that was lost into the reservoir, the high bottomhole flowing pressure
will delay the liquid removal stage (Gu, 1995). For smaller wellbore configurations with narrow CT/wellbore annular
clearance, the N2 pump rate may be limited by friction pressure loss in the annulus. An optimum N2 pump rate should be
selected based on the hydraulic simulation.

Effect of Nitrogen Injection Depth. The depth of the N2 gas injection point (nozzle tool depth) is a critical operation
parameter in successful CT unloading operations. This is similar to conventional gas lift operation where the optimum
location of the unloading gas lift valves and the operating gas lift valve should be accurately determined. The simulation
software used in this study has provisions to easily allow the gas injection depth to be changed. After the gas injection point
has been changed, the software will reset the flow paths and re-define the flow geometry.
Figure 3 shows the results of bottomhole flowing pressure vs. nitrogen rate at various gas injection depths, i.e., 6000,
7000, 8000, 9000, 10000, and 11030 ft respectively. It can be seen that for a given nitrogen gas rate, the deeper the gas
injection point, the lower the bottomhole flowing pressure will be. Fig. 3 also indicates that the minimum bottomhole flowing
pressure can be achieved by lowering the gas injection point. This result will be useful in design of the CT running depth for
a specific well and unloading operation once a desired target bottomhole pressure is defined.
Figure 4 contains a plot of minimum achievable bottomhole pressure vs. N2 injection depth. This plot clearly indicates
that if the CT is positioned deeper in the well, a lower minimum bottomhole pressure can be achieved. An advantage of CT
well unloading operations versus conventional gas lift is that the depth of the N2 injection point can be easily changed by
surface manipulation of the CT. As a matter of fact, during the CT unloading process, the CT depth can be constantly
changed. Therefore, the hydraulic condition of the CT unloading job should be simulated and evaluated at various downhole
injection depths.
Figure 5 provides a plot of surface pump pressure vs. N2 gas rate at various gas injection depths, ranging from 6000 to
11030 ft respectively. It can be observed that as injection depth increases, the required surface pump pressure is also
increased. This effect is more obvious in the range of lower N2 pump rates, say, below 500 scfm, while the effect is less
significant in the high N2 rate region. This occurs because when the N2 pump rate is relatively low, the hydrostatic pressure
in the annulus is increased with depth more than in the case of high N2 rate where the fluid density in the annulus is low and
hydrostatic pressure is less sensitive to depth change.
Figure 6 contains a plot of pump pressure change with gas injection depth for gas injection rates varying from 200 to 600
scfm respectively. For this particular wellbore scenario, Fig. 6 indicates that for the various gas injection rates modeled, the
pump pressure increase with injection depth is almost a linear relationship. However, the effect of gas injection rate on pump
pressure is much more complicated. An increase in gas rate does not necessarily increase the required pump pressure. It may
reduce the pump pressure instead. This occurs because different gas rates may create different downhole flow regimes,
resulting in significantly different pressure conditions.
4 SPE 143337

Effect of Coiled Tubing Size. Figure 7 shows a plot of bottomhole pressure vs. N2 pump rate with coiled tubing diameters
of 1 in., 1.25 in., and 1.5 in. It is interesting to note that for this specific set of well conditions, a larger diameter CT string
(1.5-in.) results in higher bottomhole pressure while a smaller diameter CT string is more helpful to reduce the bottomhole
pressure. This is a result of the ID of the tubing being quite small (2.441 in.) for this unloading example. Also note that a
smaller diameter CT string is more efficient to reduce the frictional pressure in the CT/tubing annulus flow path.
The design of CT unloading job and selection of appropriate CT sizes for a particular unloading operation should not only
consider the bottomhole pressure, but should also consider the required surface pump pressure. Fig. 8 shows the pump
pressure vs. N2 pump rate with CT diameters of 1 in., 1.25 in., and 1.5 in. respectively. It can be observed that the smaller
coiled tubing (1 in.) requires significantly higher pump pressure. The proper size of coiled tubing should be selected based on
both the bottomhole pressure and pump pressure limitations.

Effect of CT RIH Speed and Liquid Unloading Rate. CT unloading is a dynamic and transient hydraulic process. The
liquid output rate at surface could change dramatically or be very erratic. This is especially true if liquid lift mechanism is
mainly controlled by slug flow regime. Liquid rate is not an input parameter, but an unknown variable. Yet, we can still
investigate the effect of liquid unloading rate on the unloading hydraulic process. For a fixed liquid lift efficiency, it can be
expected that a greater CT RIH speed, i.e., more aggressive unloading effort, would result in more liquid flow at surface.
Therefore, by investigating the effect of liquid unloading rate, it may help us to understand the effect of CT RIH speed on the
unloading process.
Figure 9 shows the effect of liquid unloading rate for a specific calculated bottomhole pressure. The assumed liquid
unloading rates are 105, 211, and 316 bbl/day. If a 50% liquid lift efficiency is assumed, these rates would correspond to CT
RIH speeds of 20, 40, and 60 ft/min for this well geometry. It can be seen that when the liquid unloading rate is low, lower
bottomhole pressure can be expected. When the liquid rate is high, higher bottomhole pressure will be encountered. This is
because higher liquid rates will increase the liquid content in the multiphase flow in the annulus, and therefore, increase the
hydrostatic pressure loss. Fig. 9 also indicates that the points of minimum bottomhole pressure are shifted to the right (higher
gas pump rate) as the liquid unloading rate is increased from 105 bbl/day to 211 and 316 bbl/day. This change is shown on
Fig. 10. Fig. 10 shows that as liquid unloading rate is changed from 105 bbl/day to 316 bbl/day, the required optimum N2
rate is increased from 260 scfm to 380 scfm.

Liquid Unloading of Large Wellbores and Deviated Wellbores. Large wellbores present unique challenges for liquid
unloading, mainly because the fluid velocity in the annulus is too low to achieve efficient flow regimes for liquid lifting. The
annulus friction pressure loss in large wellbores is of much less concern than in small wellbores. Also, effective liquid
unloading is often limited by available maximum gas rate in large wellbores. For a given available gas rate, larger CT tubing
strings can be considered in order to increase the fluid velocity in the annulus. Fig. 11 shows the result of bottomhole
pressure vs. N2 rate for unloading of a larger wellbore. Basic well information includes the following: Well Depth = 9800 ft,
Casing ID = 3.92 in. Casing is set at 9800 ft. Reservoir thickness is 50 ft. The well is originally loaded with workover fluid,
with an initial liquid level of 3100 ft. Three CT diameters, 1.25 in., 1.5 in., and 1.75 in. are used to simulate the unloading
hydraulics of this well. It can be seen that the larger CT diameter (1.5 and 1.75 in.) have a distinct advantage in reducing the
bottomhole pressure during unloading process.
If a large wellbore is deviated, liquid unloading can be even more challenging. On one hand, the large cross-sectional area
in the annulus reduces the annular velocity; while on the other hand, the wellbore inclination angle enhances phase
separation, increases the gas-liquid slippage, and reduces liquid lift efficiency. Studies (Brill and Mukherjee, 1999; Salim and
Li, 2009) have shown that inclination angles of about 50-55o seem to be the inclination angle that provides the largest liquid
holdup or most difficult to lift liquid. In certain conditions, countercurrent flow may occur, as shown in Fig. 12. The lifting
efficiency in this flow regime could be significantly reduced.
Xu et al. (2010) recently presented a field case study of a failed liquid unloading operation in the UK North Sea. The
deviated well was completed with 7-in. tubing. Post-completion cleanup operations had resulted in the well being filled with
seawater. After several attempts, the unloading operation ended without achieving the designed bottomhole pressure. After
extensive simulation study, it was concluded that the failed operation was mainly due to limited nitrogen rate and an
inappropriate operation procedure, i.e., “injection-while-insertion.” Xu et al. (2010) further recommended that when
performing lifting operations on annulus with a large cross-sectional area, the “injection-after-insertion” procedure should be
used. But, the gas injection depth should be optimized based on hydraulic simulation. Insertion performed too deep may
require unreasonably high pump pressure whereas too shallow of an insertion depth may not be enough to build up long
liquid slugs. It should be pointed out that this “injection-after-insertion” procedure may affect the smoothness of CT
unloading operation and may compromise the stability of the well and flow system. The usefulness of this proposed
procedure should be tested by field practice.

Other Considerations.
Effect of reservoir gas production. During the later stage of CT unloading process, when the bottomhole flowing
pressure is lower than the reservoir pressure, the reservoir gas will start to flow into the wellbore. This reservoir gas flow will
help to further lighten the fluid column in the annulus and help lift the liquid. The reservoir gas flow rate at this point is a
SPE 143337 5

function of drawdown pressure and reservoir properties (reservoir deliverability). As more reservoir gas is produced into the
wellbore, the required injection gas may be reduced. When the liquid unloading is completed, the gas well will flow unaided.
The CT unloading process is transient and dynamic. More accurate simulation of the CT unloading process should be
based on true transient multiphase pipe flow models coupled with reservoir production models. Optimum N2 pump rates can
then be evaluated based on criteria that can be calculated from transient simulation, for example, the volume of required N2
and the total pumping time, etc.

Conclusions
Based on the present hydraulic simulation study and analysis of gas well unloading with CT, the following conclusions can
be drawn.
1. For relatively small wellbore diameters, there is an optimum N2 rate at which the minimum bottomhole (flowing)
pressure can be achieved. Further increase of N2 rate above this optimum gas rate would increase the friction
pressure loss in the annulus and consequently will increase the BHP.
2. As N2 injection depth increases, the minimum bottomhole pressure can be reduced linearly.
3. Under certain conditions such as small wellbore diameters, a smaller diameter CT string may be preferred in order
to reduce the bottomhole pressure. For large wellbores, the annular velocity may not be large enough to achieve
efficient liquid lift regime. In these wells, unloading result may be limited by the maximum gas rate available. The
designed gas injection rate should be as high as possible.
4. When higher liquid unloading rate (using greater CT RIH speed) is desired, the gas injection rate should also be
higher.
5. Previous studies and analysis of lifting mechanisms seem to indicate that liquid unloading in deviated wells could
be more difficult than in vertical wells, due to phase separation and inefficient flow regimes.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank National Oilwell Varco for their permission to publish this paper.

Nomenclature
bbl barrels
BHP bottomhole pressure
CT coiled tubing
ft feet
ID inner diameter
in inch
N2 nitrogen
min minute
RIH run into hole
scfm standard cubic feet per minute

References
Beggs, H.D. and Brill, J.P.: “A Study of Two-Phase Flow in Inclined Pipes,” JPT (May 1973) 607; Trans., AIME, 255.
Brill, J. and Mukherjee, H.: Multiphase Flow in Wells, SPE Monograph Vol. 17, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, Texas, 1999.
Coiled Tubing Handbook, 3rd Edition, Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, Texas, 1998.
Duns, H.Jr. and Ros, N.C.J.: “Vertical Flow of Gas and Liquid Mixtures in Wells,” Proc., Sixth World Pet. Cong., Tokyo (1963) 451.
Gray, H.E.: User’s Manual for API 14B, SSCSV Sizing Computer Program, second edition, API (1978) Appendix B, 38-41.
Gu, H.: “Transient Aspects of Unloading Oil and Gas Wells with Coiled Tubing,” paper SPE 29541 presented at the Production Operations
Symposium held in Oklahoma City, OK, USA, 2-4 April 1995.
Gu, H. and Walton, I.C.: “Development of a Computer Wellbore Simulator for Coiled-Tubing Operations,” paper SPE 28222 presented at
the SPE Petroleum Computer Conference held in Dallas, Texas, USA, 3 July – 3 August 1994.
Hagedorn, A.R. and Brown, K.E.: “Experimental Study of Pressure Gradients Occurring During Continuous Two-Phase Flow in Small-
Diameter Vertical Conduits,” JPT (April 1965) 475; Trans., AIME, 234.
ICoTA: An Introduction to Coiled Tubing, International Coiled Tubing Association, http://www.icota.com/introCT/introct.pdf.
Lea, J., Nickens, H.V., and Wells, M.: Gas Well Deliquification – Solution to Gas Well Liquid Loading Problems, Gulf Professional
Publishing, 2003.
Misselbrook, J., Wilde, G., and Falk, K.: “The Development and Use of a Coiled-Tubing Simulation for Horizontal Applications,” paper
SPE 22822 presented at the 66th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in Dallas,
TX, October 6-9, 1991.
Okiszewski, J.: “Predicting Two-Phase Pressure Drops in Vertical Pipes,” JPT (June 1967) 829; Trans.; AIME, 240.
Salim, P. and Li, J.: “Simulation of Liquid Unloading from a Gas Well with Coiled Tubing Using a Transient Software,” paper SPE
124195 presented at the 2009 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 4-7 October
2009.
6 SPE 143337

Salim, P., Aitken, B., and Li, J.: “A Transient Multi-Phase Flow Simulation Using Steady-State Correlations for Coiled Tubing
Applications – New Insights to Old Problems,” paper SPE 130647 presented at the 2010 SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing & Well
Intervention Conference & Exhibition held in the Woodlands, Texas, USA, 23-24 March 2010.
Xu, Z., Maurera, J., and Shields, C.: “Well Displacement Hydraulics – A Field Case Study and Simulation Investigation,” paper SPE
137342 presented at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference held in Abu Dhabi , UAE, 1-4 November 2010.
SPE 143337 7

Fig. 1 Geometry of Example Well 1.

4500

4000

3500

3000
Bottomhole Pressure, psi

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Nitrogen Pump Rate, scfm
Fig. 2 Effect of Nitrogen Rate on the Bottomhole Pressure during CT Unloading (Example Well 1).
8 SPE 143337

5000

4500

4000

3500
Bottomhole Pressure, psi

3000

2500

2000

1500
6000 ft
7000 ft
1000
8000 ft
9000 ft
500 10000 ft
11030 ft

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Nitrogen Pump Rate, scfm
Fig. 3 Effect of Gas Injection Depth on Bottomhole Pressure.

3500

3000
Minimum Bottomhole Pressure, psi

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000

Depth of N2 Injection, ft
Fig. 4 Effect of Gas Injection Depth on Minimum Bottomhole Pressure.
SPE 143337 9

4500

4000

3500

3000
Pump Pressure, psi

2500

2000

1500
6000 ft
1000 7000 ft
8000 ft
9000 ft
500
10000 ft
11030 ft
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Nitrogen Pump Rate, scfm
Fig. 5 Effect of Gas Injection Depth on Pump Pressure.

2500

2000
Pump Pressure, psi

1500

1000

200 scfm
500
300 scfm
400 scfm
500 scfm
600 scfm
0
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000

Depth of N2 Injection, ft
Fig. 6 Effect of Gas Injection Depth on Pump Pressure.
10 SPE 143337

4500

4000

3500
Bottomhole Pressure, psi

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Nitrogen Pump Rate, scfm

1 inch 1.25 inch 1.5 inch

Fig. 7 Effect of CT Size on Bottomhole Pressure. Gas Injection Depth = 10000 ft.

6000

5000

4000
Pump Pressure, psi

3000

2000

1000

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Nitrogen Pump Rate, scfm

1‐in. CT 1.25‐in. CT 1.5‐in. CT

Fig. 8 Effect of CT Size on Pump Pressure. Gas Injection Depth = 10000 ft.
SPE 143337 11

5000
Liquid Unloading Rate = 105 bbl/day
4500 Liquid Unloading Rate = 211 bbl/day
Liquid Unloading Rate = 316 bbl/day
4000

3500
Bottomhole Pressure, psi

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Nitrogen Pump Rate, scfm
Fig. 9 Effect of Liquid Unloading Rate on Bottomhole Pressure, Example Well 1.

400

350

300
Optimum N2 Pump Rate, scfm

250

200

150

100

50

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Liquid Unloading Rate, bbl/day
Fig. 10 Effect of Liquid Unloading Rate on the Optimum N2 Injection Rate, Example Well 1.
12 SPE 143337

5000

4500

4000

3500
Bottomhole Pressure, psi

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Nitrogen Pump Rate, scfm

1.25‐inch CT 1.5‐inch CT 1.75‐inch CT

Fig. 11 Effect of Coiled Tubing Size on Bottomhole Pressure for a Large Wellbore (Example Well 2).

CT

Fig. 12 Counter-Current Flow in Inclined Wellbore.