SPE-184785-MS

Subsea Coiled Tubing Acid Stimulation Operation Using CT Tractor in

Angola

Karthik Rajamani, Welltec, Angola; Brian Schwanitz, Welltec, Inc.

Copyright 2017, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing & Well Intervention Conference & Exhibition held in Houston, TX, USA, 21-22 March 2017.

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
An Angolan operator needed to perform a coiled tubing (CT) acid micro-wash stimulation on a subsea
sand screen completion in order to improve production. The CT simulation showed that the coil would not
reach the objective, which was the bottom screen, even with friction reducers, without the assistance of
additional forces. The operator chose to deploy a downhole tractor to provide a pulling force to achieve the
desired depth. However, this horizontal well had debris which prevented reaching the objective and required
changing strategies to accomplish the job.
A downhole tractor can be powered by pumping fluids down the coiled tubing, driving a turbine which
powers the hydraulic systems in the tractor. The drive fluid will then pass through the tractor and out the
bottom of the tool to provide the treatment. Surface testing is performed prior to the job to determine at
which pumping rate the tractor will be engaged and disengaged. This testing is performed with and without
treating nozzles to gauge tool performance and expected pumping rates for tractoring and treating.
In this Angolan operation two runs were required to reach the bottom screen due to debris fill in the
completion preventing passage during the first run. On the second run the CT provider used a nozzle that
could both clean the well and treat in the same run. This operation demonstrates the effectiveness of using
CT tractors, which are under-utilized in the industry, to achieve extended reach beyond the normal CT range.
It also demonstrates the quick mobilization and same day deployment, as well as problem solving that can
occur when service companies (CT provider and tractor provider) work closely together.

Introduction
Background
Horizontal wells are drilled in increasing frequency because of the high productivity that they provide. This
is proven in the case of unconsolidated sandstone reservoirs as is characteristic of Angola. Failure to realize
this productivity and design the well for the corresponding challenges, can endanger the profitability of
the project. Most of the wells that are drilled are completed as either open hole gravel pack completions
in case of producers and either stand-alone screens or expandable sand screens in case of injectors. The
high productivity of the reservoirs, up to 30,000 BOPD in some wells, can be severely compromised by a
declining productivity index. It is critical to ensure that the drilling fluids and completion fluids selected
2 SPE-184785-MS

do not create a mechanical skin, or plug the screens thereby drastically reducing the productivity when the
wells are put on production (Alfenore, J. et al, 1999)1.
Batch completions are routinely used to optimize the rig schedules and costs. However, this results in a
gap of almost 6 – 20 months between the installation of the lower completion and the upper completion.
Cleanup of the well prior to putting on production is thus delayed creating concerns of impairment of the
reservoir and reduction in productivity. Mud losses during drilling also compound this effect enabling the
formation of mechanical skin (Menezes, C. et al, 2012)2.
The Angolan operator has over time devised a successful remediation strategy which resolves this issue
and improves the productivity / injectivity of the wells. The operator designs an appropriate filter cake or
mechanical skin treatment fluid through rigorous laboratory testing. Once the fluid design is achieved, the
treatment fluid is placed within the formation and screen assembly using coil tubing (CT) and a rotating jet
blaster at the end. This ensures that the treatment fluid is efficiently placed across the entire screen length and
successful cleanup of the mechanical skin is achieved along with enhancing the near wellbore permeability.

The Case Story

The operator needed to perform such a treatment on a horizontal oil producer. This well was drilled with a
special designer mud with a heavy density, mixed with loss control material (LCM). This was done because
the operator anticipated losses while drilling due to expected cross flow between two upper zones above
the hydrocarbon zone. When such a situation is encountered the operator typically performs a microwash
treatment after the lower completion is installed to reduce the skin effect from the mud losses and the LCM.
This treatment can be performed before the well is handed over to production on the FPSO. The general
procedure is that immediately after the upper completion is installed, CT is rigged up with the rotating jet
blaster and the micro-wash treatment is pumped through the coil from the depth of the bottom most screen
all the way to the top of the screen section.
For this particular well, the decision was first taken to perform the cleanup treatment through the FPSO
instead of with a CT intervention. The reason for this decision is out of the scope of this paper. When the
well was put on production, the flow rate was negligible, most likely caused by plugging of the sand screens.
It was then decided to perform the microwash treatment using CT from the rig. A coiled tubing tractor was
required to convey the CT and rotating jet blaster as a CT force simulation showed that CT would lock up
about 280m before reaching target depth in spite of using friction reducers. The operator decided to use
the CT tractor to ensure the jet blaster is conveyed to the bottom of the lower most screen section. The CT
tractor needed to be compatible with the treatment fluid and able to provide a pathway for the treatment
fluid through the tractor to the rotating jet blaster. Proper planning was undertaken to configure the tractor
and remedial treatment between the tractor and treating service providers.
This paper discusses the job planning and the downhole tool configurations used to enable successful
execution of the microwash treatment to increase the productivity of the subsea oil producer.

Tools and Equipment

The Coiled Tubing Tractor
When no more weight or pushing force can be transmitted to the end of the CT then lock up occurs and CT
can go no further. Simulation softwares can accurately predict the depth at which this lock up can occur. The
factors taken into account in the simulation include the well trajectory, coil tubing specifications, completion
profile, well fluid type and rheology, temperature, pressure, friction coefficients, etc. The coil tubing tractor
provides maximum concentrated force of up to 4000 lbf at the end of the coil depending on the configuration
used. This prevents the lock up from occurring and enables the conveyance of the CT to an extended reach
target depth (Omari, M., Plessing, H., 2007)3. The coil tubing tractor is made up of a turbine section which
SPE-184785-MS 3

is powered by the fluid that is pumped through the CT. The turbine powers the hydraulic system and moves
the tractor forward. Figure 1 shows a typical schematic of the CT tractor that was used in this intervention.
The different sections of the coil tubing tractor shown in Figure 1 are as follows:

Figure 1—Coil tubing tractor

1. Top connector
2. Turbine
3. Hydraulic pump section
4. Wheel sections
5. Pressure compensator
6. Bottom connector or nozzles
For this well, taking into consideration the minimum restriction in the well and the maximum ID, a
3 1/8" coil tubing tractor was selected. The wheel sizes were selected to enable the tractor to encounter
the maximum steps from big to small ID sections within the completion. A typical coil tubing tractor is
configured with 5 wheel sections depending on the force required to convey the CT to target depth. Based
on the simulation done for this well, it was determined that the standard 5 wheel section configuration would
be sufficient to provide the required force. A flow through path is provided through the tractor body to
allow the treatment fluid to reach the rotating jet blaster connected below the tractor and exit through the
ports in the jet blaster.

CT Reel and Rotating Jet Blaster

A 1.75" OD CT was selected which provided an ID of 1.5" through the coil. Two versions of the rotating jet
blaster were available. The first version had two radial ports which would eject the treatment fluid radially
along the screens as the CT would run in and out of the well. The second version had two radial ports and
one axial port. These two versions are as shown in Figure 2. The rotating jet blaster with the two radial
ports was chosen for this operation as the operator wanted the entire force of the microwash treatment to
be focused on the screens radially.
4 SPE-184785-MS

Figure 2—Two versions of the Jet blaster, one with only radial ports and one with radial and axial ports

Job Planning
The operation was planned between the tractor provider, CT service provider and the operator to take into
account all the various parameters to design and configure the CT tractor to be fit for purpose. The simulation
showed that theoretical lock up would occur 281m above the target depth with friction reducer. A coil tubing
tractor capable of providing up to 2000 lbf of force would be able to overcome this and convey the coil to
target depth. A coiled tubing tractor configured with 5 wheel sections (20 wheels) can provide up to 2500
lbf of force and was selected for the operation. The seals and o-rings in the CT tractor were selected such
that they would withstand the effects of the microwash treatment solution being pumped through the tractor.
Laboratory coupon testing of various types of standard o-rings used in the tractors was conducted in the
past using similar acid solution as that being used in the microwash treatment. Each o-ring was soaked in
an organic acid mix of the following composition as shown in Table 1.

Table 1—Microwash composition for coupon testing

Description Concentration For 100 ml

Fresh Water 848 gal / 1000 gal 84.8 ml

A 272, Corrosion Inhibitor 2 gal / 1000 gal 0.2 ml

L036, Formic acid 100 gal / 1000 gal 10 ml

L400, Acetic acid 50 gal / 1000 gal 5 ml

The types of o-rings tested and the results are as shown in Table 2.

Table 2—O-ring Coupon testing results

Sample Delta Weight (%)

O-ring material Comments
# after soak test

1 Viton + 4.36 % O-ring was visibly swollen

2 Nitrile + 1.92 % Showed least amount of swelling

3 Hydrated Nitrile + 10.9 % O-ring was visible swollen

Based on the testing, nitrile o-rings have exhibited the best resistance to the microwash treatment solution
and were used for the operation. Surface testing of the CT tractor in combination with the jet blaster was
done to ensure that the activation points of the tractor would be properly selected. Sea water will be pumped
through the CT reel and tractor turbine to provide the required flow rate for activating the tractor and
SPE-184785-MS 5

conveying the CT and rotating jet blaster to target depth. Once the jet blaster is conveyed to target depth,
the flow through the CT and tractor will be reduced by controlling the pumping rate from the CT pump.
This will result in the powering down of the tractor due to reduction in the hydraulic force generated by the
turbine. The wheels will disengage from the ID of the completion and only the rotating jet blaster will be
active. At this time the microwash treatment will be pumped through the CT and the entire BHA will be
pulled up through the screen section while simultaneously cleaning the inside of the screens and placing the
microwash within the screens and annulus between screens and well bore.
The selection of the activation point of the tractor wheels is critical in relation to the activation of the
jet blaster as we want to power down the tractor and prevent the wheels from engaging with the screens
during the placement of the microwash and pulling the bottom hole assembly (BHA) out of the well. This is
achieved by configuring the turbine section of the CT tractor. The maximum pumping rate available from
the CT pump or the rig pump is also taken into consideration. The Table 3 below shows the barrels per
minute (bpm) rate for the critical activation points of the tractor and jet blaster with radial nozzles.

Table 3—Activation point for tractor with radial jet blaster

Wheel arms
Rate (bpm) Jet blaster rotates
extended

0.3 No No

0.4 Yes No

0.5 Yes No

0.6 Yes No

0.7 Yes No

0.8 Yes Yes

0.9 Yes Yes

1.0 Yes Yes

1.1 Yes Yes

Table 4 shows the bpm rate and activation points for the tractor and jet blaster with radial and axial
nozzles.

Table 4—Activation point for tractor with radial and axial jet blaster

Wheel arms
Rate (bpm) Jet blaster rotates
extended

0.3 No No

0.4 No No

0.5 No No

0.6 Yes No

0.7 Yes Yes

0.8 Yes Yes

0.9 Yes Yes

1.0 Yes Yes

1.1 Yes Yes

6 SPE-184785-MS

From the above testing, it was determined that the flow through the CT has to be reduced to 0.6 bpm
once the tractor has reached the target depth. This will disengage the tractor by collapsing the wheel arms
while the jet blaster is still activated.

Job Execution and Results

First Run
While running in hole through the vertical section of the well bore, the flow rate was kept at a minimal 0.2
- 0.3 bpm. At approximately 100m above the theoretical lock up depth, the flow rate through the CT was
increased to the tractor activation point of 0.8 – 1.0 bpm as per the results of surface testing shown in Table
3. A positive tension pick up was seen on the CT tension indicator and the tractor pulled the BHA for 557m
before it stopped and could progress no further. The tractor could not convey the jet blaster to target depth
and hit an obstruction 125m above the target depth. Multiple attempts were made to pull up and try again
without success. It was decided to pull the BHA out of the well and troubleshoot. The microwash treatment
was placed while the tools were pulled out of the well. On pulling the BHA out, it was observed that there
was debris stuck to the wheels and between the individual wheels. The debris consisted of heavy density
drilling mud combined with a form of thick sludge. The debris close to the deepest depth of the screens was
obstructing the tractor from passing through.
It was decided to change the configuration of the jet blaster to enable both radial and axial nozzles. This
will allow a jet of fluid to be ejected from the radial ports and the central axial port which will aid in pushing
the debris out of the way and breaking up the obstruction thereby allowing the tractor to continue down to
target depth. It was also decided to flow the well for 12 hours before the second run to allow the flow from
the reservoir to break up the obstruction and clear the path through the bottom 125m of screen section.

Second Run
After 12 hours of flow back, the tools were rigged up and the second run was executed. The tractor was
activated at approximately 100m above the theoretical lock up depth by increasing the flow rate to 0.8-1.0
bpm as per Table 4. This activated the wheels to engage with the completion and provided the pull force to
convey the CT and jet blaster to target depth. The wheels engaging with the completion was also confirmed
by a relative increase in tension seen in the CT tension indicator.
The axial flow through the jet blaster assisted in clearing any debris still present in the bottom screen
section and the tractor was able to convey the entire BHA to the target depth successfully. The flow rate
was then reduced to 0.6 bpm to disengage the wheels and deactivate the tractor while keeping the jet blaster
activated. The microwash solution tank was connected to the pumping unit and treatment was pumped
through the CT reel and tractor and jet blaster assembly. The tools were pulled out of the well while
performing the treatment and the operation was successfully completed.

Conclusions
As more and more horizontal wells are drilled, it's ever more critical to have the appropriate conveyance
technologies available to execute various kinds of interventions. Placement of acid solutions or microwash
treatments before putting wells on production is very important as it can result in enhancing the productivity
index, especially when mud losses were encountered during the drilling of the reservoir section. Increased
suspension time due to batch installations of lower and upper completions also plays an effect.
The coil tubing tractor with the functionality to convey a rotating jet blaster and allowing acid or
microwash treatment placement throughout the open-hole screen sections provides a valuable intervention
that can increase productivity. Future job planning can be enhanced to take into consideration the usage
of LCM and the debris generated so that additional runs can be avoided by selecting the right kind of jet
SPE-184785-MS 7

blasters. The coil tubing tractor provides a niche solution to operators utilizing these kinds of interventions
on horizontal wells.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Angolan operator for the permission to present this case history. They
would also like to thank the CT provider and the Welltec Angolan operations teams for their collaborative
work on this project.

References
1. Alfenore, J., Longeron, D., Saintpere, S., 1999. What really Matters in our Quest of Minimizing
Formation Damage in Open Hole Horizontal Wells. Presented at the SPE European Formation
Damage Conference in The Hague, The Netherlands, 31 May – 1 June. SPE 54731.
2. Menezes, C., Benchimol, L., Mcewan, M. et al, 2012. Improving Well Productivity/Injectivity
on Deepwater offshore Horizontal Drains. Presented at the SPE International Symposium and
Exhibition on Formation Damage Control in Lafayette, Louisiana, USA, 15-17 February, SPE
150999.
3. Omari, M., Plessing, H., 2007. Innovation in Coiled-Tubing Tractor Technology Extends the
Accessibility of Coiled Tubing in Horizontal Wells, Allowing Better Possibilities for Well
Intervention. Presented at the 15th SPE Middle East Oil and Gas show and Conference in
Bahrain, 11-14 March, SPE 105225.