SPE-172527-MS

Velocity String Helps to Revive a Standing Gas Well in Saudi Arabia

R.R. Saldeev, S.A. Asel, S. H. Bo Khamseen, and A. A. Mulhim, Saudi Aramco; Danish Ahmed,
Mohammed Aiman Kneina, Vejarano R Eduardo, Abhiroop Srivastava, and Adzlan Ayob, Schlumberger

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Middle East Oil & Gas Show and Conference held in Manama, Bahrain, 8 –11 March 2015.

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
A successful field trial of velocity-string technology was recently completed on a standing gas well with
high condensate-gas ratio (CGR) in Saudi Arabia. The operation was performed in three attempts, and it
included running a 10,000-ft-long, 2 3/8-in. outside diameter (OD) coiled tubing velocity string hung
inside the existing 4 1/2-in. production tubing using a mechanical packer/hanger. To comply with the
pressure barrier policy ((i.e. API 16ST) operations, the lower bottomhole assembly (BHA) included
retrievable cartridges with double-flapper check valves, which were retrieved later using slickline. Both
Saudi Aramco and the service company faced several serious challenges during this operation, which
required three running attempts and also modifications to packer/hanger construction. Some of the
procedures were changed, as well, to address the encountered complications. A test separator was used to
measure the flow at surface prior to and after the velocity-string installation for evaluation of results. This
standing well was revived after being dead for 2 years, and it was put back on production with more than
5 MMscf/D at flowing wellhead pressure (FWHP) of 1,900 psig, condensate rate in order of 1,000 B/D,
and water rate less than 100 B/D. The velocity-string approach has proved to be a cost-effective solution
for Saudi Aramco gas wells with a condensate banking problem, and the velocity-string approach is
planned for several well candidates in the next 2 yr.

Introduction
The best way to produce hydrocarbons from a field is to utilize the field’s potential (pressure-drive
mechanism). As a gas reservoir produces, the pressure of the reservoir decreases due to depletion (Garzon
et al. 2006). Once pressure decreases below a certain value, the dewpoint pressure is reached, generating
retrograde condensate in the well during production. Thus, flow rates are severely reduced due to
accumulation of condensate or water blockage in near-wellbore zone. Liquid condensate is produced from
the gas phase and is trapped by capillary forces or retained in the rock as a result of low liquid mobility
(Butler et al. 2009). The condensate dropout in the near-wellbore zone lowers production rates due to low
gas relative permeability. One of the Saudi Arabian gas fields producing nonassociated natural fluids at
formation pressure close to dewpoint pressure is Field-A. The field is producing from consolidated
sandstone formations at an average depth of 12,000 ft. The gas production is from 40 connected wells at
an average production from a well of 8 MMscf/D of gas with flowing wellhead pressure (FWHP) of 1,300
2 SPE-172527-MS

to 3,400 psi. The completion used in these wells is mostly 4 ½-in. carbon steel tubing, 7-in. permanent
packer, and predrilled liner or perforated cased hole. Chemical treatments for condensate banking removal
were used to enhance productivity; this was successful in similar fields, but it was not feasible for Field-A
wells. Another method to resolve the condensate banking had to be found, studied, and implemented.
Some of the options available were:
● Perform a workover to install tubing with a smaller inside diameter (ID)
● Install a velocity string
● Perform artificial lift with options such as electric submersible pumps (ESP), jet pumps, positive
cavity pumps, plunger lift, gas lift, etc.
From these options, installing a velocity string was found to be the quickest, most cost-effective, safest,
and most appropriate solution. The goal of velocity-string installation is to increase the gas velocity to a
level at which it could produce condensate to the surface flowline. This can be accomplished by reducing
the production tubing size.

Objective
In this paper, we describe the first velocity-string installation in Saudi Aramco gas fields. The subject well,
an outstanding gas producer in its field, had the problem of condensate banking, which affected its
production life span. In this paper, we describe the procedures and steps taken during planning and
implementation of the velocity string. A preset length of coiled tubing (CT) string was cut and deployed
inside the production tubing, and the well produced through the inside of the CT string. A CT packer was
set as part of upper bottomhole assembly (BHA) of the string to hold the completion in place. Based on
simulation and well conditions, the string’s size, length, and packer depth were three important parameters
to be determined.
Various simulations were performed to decide the best CT size and length required to optimize the
production and satisfy the objective of project. An excessively large string diameter was not feasible; it
would not help in achieving the objective of the installation, and handling the larger-diameter CT string
would add various difficulties, such as stabbing a pipe into the injector head. Smaller-size tubing,
likewise, would have caused more loss in production, but it could have eventually lengthened the well’s
life due to slower depletion of formation pressure. Thus, selection of an appropriate size of CT was a big
challenge. In addition, during the field operation, different modifications and lessons learned were
reported and analyzed to avoid such challenges in future installations.

Job Planning
The first step was to identify the problem, which is liquid condensate being produced with gas; the liquid
accumulates downhole, filling the wellbore, and, as a result, killing the well. Several wells were
experiencing this phenomenon, and candidates for this project were selected from these wells. Well-A was
chosen to be the appropriate candidate due to a high condensate/gas ratio (CGR) of 174 STB/MMscf/D
with relatively low formation pressure. The well had been shut-in for 2 yr because of the condensate
accumulation that restricted production. Before the well had died, it had been on production for 5 yr, from
2007 to 2012. Initial potential of the well was 20 MMscf/D with flowing wellhead pressure (FWHP) of
2,400 psi. The main objective of the intervention was to revive the well and put it back on production with
sustainable flow for at least an additional 3 to 4 yr.
Other options that were evaluated to improve well’s outflow performance—replacing tubing with
string with a smaller inside diameter (ID), using artificial lift equipment such as electric submersible
pumps (ESP), etc.—were turned down due to complexity and associated cost of the workover (WO)
operation. The most cost-effective and operationally safe solution was found to be the installation of a
velocity string inside the existing tubing.
SPE-172527-MS 3

After the initial screening of candidate wells and selecting a well for the pilot test of the technology,
it was necessary to have as much accurate data on reservoir properties and inflow performance of the well
as possible. Well testing with a test separator and fiber-optics-equipped coiled tubing (CT) string were
agreed upon as the best way to collect the required data. Along with completion and historical data, such
as tubing and casing details, deviation survey, well history, and production data, reservoir information was
gathered and analyzed to select the appropriate CT string size for final deployment; this information
included openhole logs, production logs, pressure/volume/temperature (PVT) data, and permeability and
porosity of the formation.

Velocity String Depth and Size Selection

After gathering the data needed, a nodal analysis model was created to simulate inflow and outflow well
performance. Reservoir and pressure/volume/temperature (PVT) properties, string length, and optimum
inside-diameter (ID) size were a few of all major scenario-changing parameters that were taken into
account. Fig. 1 shows two coiled-tubing (CT) string sizes, 2 3/8-in. and 2 7/8-in. outside diameter (OD),
being considered for the operation based on optimized nodal analysis. The figure illustrates the effec-
tiveness of both strings to lift condensate and their impact on production rates and bottomhole pressure
(BHP). Plot 1 in Fig. 1 shows the different gas rates (Qg) that are to be produced with respect to the setting
depth of the string. A steady increase of gas production is noticed once length of a string is longer than
10,000 ft, but a very subtle increase in production is gained for strings set shallower than 10,000 ft. The
situation changes in Plot II: as string length increases to 10,000 ft, the condensate rate increases sharply,
but once setting depth changes to greater than 10,000 ft, the condensate rate gain decreases. By examining
Plot III, it can be seen clearly that with a setting depth shallower than 10,000 ft, the bottomhole flowing
pressure (BHFP) starts to increase sharply indicating “dead well conditions” and liquid loading. Com-
bining the output of all the plots led to choosing the depth of 10,000 ft as the optimum setting depth for
velocity string.
4 SPE-172527-MS

Figure 1—Performance of 2 3/8-in. and 2 7/8-in. CT velocity strings (VS) (S.A.Asel et al. 2014).

After the setting depth was chosen, the optimum string size was to be considered. Fig. 2 shows the
inflow performance relationship (IPR) and vertical lift performance (VLP) for the previously mentioned
strings of 2 3/8-in. and 2 7/8-in. OD. With flowing wellhead pressure (FWHP) of 1,200 psi, the well was
expected to produce almost double amount of gas with 2 7/8-in. than with 2 3/8-in. However, for reservoir
management purposes, to avoid early depletion of the well and allow at least 3 to 4 yr of sustained
production, the 2 3/8-in. OD CT option was chosen.
SPE-172527-MS 5

Figure 2—2–3/8-in. OD CT was chosen for its satisfactory performance and availability.

Future slickline and wireline interventions were also considered. The inner diameter of the chosen
string (i.e., 2 3/8-in.) would allow such future operations. One of the reasons why a 2-in. OD CT was not
considered was that its inner diameter would restrict slickline/wireline interventions. The other reason was
that the well performance model showed the well would not produce above the economic limit of 5
MMscf/D. In the next sections, the bottomhole assembly (BHA) and the operational procedures are
discussed in detail.

Velocity String Design

The bottomhole assembly (BHA) design is described below and illustrated in Fig. 3.
6 SPE-172527-MS

Figure 3—Velocity string BHA. a) Upper BHA. b) Lower BHA.

Upper BHA
The upper BHA was an essential part of the project as it plays the major role in setting and sealing the
string downhole. The upper BHA (Fig. 3a) contains the packing element and slips that hold the completion
in place inside the production tubing. Also, a hydraulic disconnect with wireline re-entry guide was placed
as part of the BHA to release the packer from running string once it was set in place and to fish the velocity
string out of the hole in case retrieval was needed later. The upper BHA was installed on top of the
velocity string after the string was run to the designated planned depth hung and sealed on the blowout
preventer (BOP) rams, and cut using an annular work window (AWW).
Lower BHA
The lower BHA (Fig. 3b) was placed at the lower end of the velocity string. Its main purpose was to
provide an internal barrier and ensure compliance with the Saudi Aramco barrier policy. The lower BHA
contained X-nipple and XN-nipple components, where pump-through locks were pre-installed with
double flapper check valves (DFCV). Once installation of the velocity string finished, those pump-through
locks were retrieved using standard slickline tools.
Pressure Barriers Compliance and Pressure Test Procedures
Prior starting operations, compliance to safety standards of both Saudi Aramco and the service company
had to be verified. An essential part of the safety standards were the industry-standard pressure barriers
policy (i.e. API RP 16ST (2009)). Compliance was ensured by the following means:
SPE-172527-MS 7

● Blind shear rams on each of two blowout preventers (BOPs)

● Pipe/slips rams on each of the two BOPs
● One annular BOP (ABOP)
● Pressure testing of all annular barriers to 7,500 psi
● Four internal string barriers (flapper check valves)
● Pressure testing of internal barriers in the yard to 7,500 psi
● Pressure testing of internal barriers on location to 5,000 psi and inflow testing
After equipment was rigged up on the wellhead, it was to be pressure tested. The following pressure
test procedure was designed for the operation:
● Pressure test from crown valve (CV) against BOP-1 (lowermost BOP) blind shear ram (pumping
through BOP kill port).
● Pressure test from CV against the BOP-2 blind shear ram (pumping through BOP kill port).
● Open BOP-1 and BOP-2 blind rams, run coiled tubing (CT) string pipe cross the BOPs, close
BOP-1 pipe/slip ram, and pressure test (pumping through tree kill valve).
● Close BOP-2 pipe/slip ram, open BOP-1 pipe/slip ram and pressure test (pumping through tree kill
valve).
● With pipe/slip rams closed on both BOPs, close the ABOP against the CT keeping flow-tee above
the BOPs opened. Pressure test the ABOP from below (pumping through BOP-2 kill port).
● With pipe/slip rams closed on both BOPs, keep the valves on the BOP ports opened and with
ABOP closed against the CT pipe, pressure test the ABOP from above (pumping through
flow-tee).
● Cycle the annular work window (AWW) open/closed and pressure test (pumping through
flow-tee).

Operational Procedure
The next step after the decisions on velocity string outside diameter (OD) and setting depth, BHA
selection, barrier policies compliance verification, and pressure test procedures design was to design
detailed procedures for velocity-string deployment. The procedure was designed as follows:
● Rig up coiled tubing (CT) tower, blowout preventer (BOP)-1, BOP-2, annular BOP (ABOP),
flow-tee, hydraulic quick latch. Prepare annular work window (AWW), risers, stripper, and
injector head.
● Connect and pressure test lower bottomhole assembly (BHA) to the velocity string: two double
flapper check valves (DFCVs) installed inside both the X and XN nipples.
● Install injector head and risers, AWW, to the hydraulic quick latch.
● Pressure test the entire stack as per procedures mentioned above.
● Bleed-off the CT pressure (CTP) and wellhead pressure (WHP) to 5,000 psi.
● Inflow test the DFCVs lower BHA to 5,000 psi by bleeding off the CTP to 0 psi and keeping the
WHP at 5,000 psi for 10 min.
● Open crown valve (CV), equalize pressure across the hydraulic master valve (HMV), and open the
valve.
● Load the well through the tubing kill valve (TKV) with filtered 5% KCl brine.
● Start running in hole (RIH) to 10,000 ft.
● Stop CT, bleed-off CTP to 0 psi, and inflow test the DFCV for 1 hr.
● Close pipe/slip rams on BOP-1. Monitor pressure at kill port of BOP-1.
● Slack-off weight and confirm pipe rams are holding.
8 SPE-172527-MS

● Bleed-off pressure from above the ABOP through the flow-tee. Leave valves opened for 10 min.
Confirm again that the pressure inside the CT has been bled to 0 psi.
● Close pipe/slip rams on BOP-2. Monitor pressure at kill port of BOP-2.
● Open equalizing valve on BOP-1. Observe pressure buildup for 10 min.
● Close ABOP and open equalizing valve of BOP-2 and observe pressure buildup for 10 min.
● Close equalizing valves in BOP-1 and BOP-2 and inflow test BOP-1 and BOP-2 pipe rams and
ABOP for 1 hr.
● Open the AWW and prepare for cutting the CT string.
● Cut the CT string close to the bottom of the AWW and prepare surface to install an inverse CT
connector.
● Disconnect stack-up at the hydraulic quick latch and move it aside. Prepare to install another CT
connector.
● Pull test the newly installed CT connector to 40,000 lbf, and pressure test to 7,500 psi.
● Install upper BHA tools.
● Rig-up injector head to the hydraulic quick latch and slowly lower down the upper BHA inside the
AWW.
● Make-up inverse CT connector to the upper BHA and pull test it to 40,000 lbf.
● Close the AWW and pressure test it against the stripper (on top) and the ABOP (on bottom) to
3,000 psi (through flow-tee).
● Bleed-off pressure to the shut-in wellhead pressure (SIWHP), close flow-tee, and open BOP-1 and
BOP-2 equalizing ports.
● Open the ABOP and close the equalizing ports on BOP-1 and BOP-2.
● Pull CT to the normal hanging weight at depth.
● Open BOP-1 and BOP-2 pipe/slip rams.
● Slowly run upper BHA through the tree until CT packer/hanger is at the hang-off depth of 90 ft.
● Apply the CT packer/hanger setting procedures.
● Test the packer setting by slacking-off the CT weight, and set down an additional 5,000 lbf.
● Pressure test the packer from above to 1,000 psi (pumping through the tubing-CT annulus).
● Pump through the CT at the rate of 60 gal/min to release the GS pulling tool.
● Pull out of hole (POOH) the running string to surface.
● Close CV and hydraulic master valve (HMV).
● Rig-down CT equipment.
● Test the well with test separator.
During the execution stage, due to various reasons that will be explained in detail below, the
deployment finished after the third attempt. Between those attempts, thorough investigations of the
failures were made both by Saudi Aramco and the service company, and modifications were made in
packer construction and running procedures.

Attempt 1
Objectives
● Run and deploy velocity string
● Perform pilot test of the technology and equipment
Summary of Operation
● CT crew spotted and rigged-up equipment and CT tower, mixed fluids, drifted and pickled CT
string, made up BHA, loaded well with fluid.
● RIH with velocity string to planned depth of 10,000 ft.
SPE-172527-MS 9

● Closed pipe and slip rams on both BOPs and manually locked them, slacked-off weight to 36,000
lbf Performed necessary pressure/inflow tests.
● Opened AWW, cut pipe, made up upper BHA, which was pull-tested, pressure-tested against
ABOP from above.
● RIH to set packer, had hard tag at 43 ft.
● POOH to surface, found six packer-slip fingers broken, scratches on 3.75-in. OD hydraulic
disconnect (Fig. 4). Changed packer to a backup one. Replaced 3.75-in. OD disconnect with
2.88-in. OD one.

Figure 4 —Packer-slip fingers and slip.

● RIH to set packer. Set packer at 89.5 ft. Pressure tested the packer.
● Tried to release packer from GS pulling tool but failed.
● Pumped a ball inside CT and disconnected from hydraulic disconnect. POOH to surface. Rigged
down.
Results
● During first run, the packer could not successfully reach the planned depth. The upper BHA was
tagging at 43 ft. Later it was found that there is a restriction with ID less than 3.92 in. below
passing the tubing hanger; this restriction was not reflected in the well tubing diagram.
● After investigating the reason behind the tag, it was found that at the level of the lower manual
master valve (LMMV), ID changes significantly, and the packer mechanism switches to set
position. Changes in ID were confirmed from a previously performed caliper log. The slips were
broken due to premature activation.
● During the second run, the GS hydraulic disconnect failed to release. Reasons for the malfunction
are presented below, in the description of the second attempt.
● Several modifications were planned for packer construction:

– Change single J-slot action packer to double J-slot packer mechanism to address ID size
increase from tree to tubing hanger.
– Increase the size of the packer centralizer from 4 ½-in. to 7-in. to hold the packer in RIH
position while crossing wellhead and tubing hanger.
10 SPE-172527-MS

– Limit the upper movement of the packer slips with NO-GO stops to protect the slips from
breaking.

Attempt 2
Objectives
● Fish and retrieve the packer/hanger with 2.88-in. hydraulic disconnect fish neck on top of it
● Replace packer with a modified one
● Run and deploy velocity string
Summary of Operation
● RIH, tagged top of packer at 93 ft and tried to latch, unsuccessfully.
● POOH to surface, inspected BHA, found one prong of the pulling tool was bent and a piece of was
rubber stuck inside of the slips (Fig.-5).

Figure 5—Damaged 3=-in. GS pulling tool.

● RIH with backup 3-in. GS pulling tool. Circulated on top of packer at the depth of 90 ft. Latched
and unset the packer, and POOH to surface for inspection
● Replaced packer with modified one.
● RIH to depth of 100 ft, cycled 15 times to set, without success. POOH to surface for inspection.
Found that packer springs were bent and compressed causing the dowel pin of the J-slot to bind.
● Modified packer with 4 3/8-in. OD bow springs (Fig. 6).
SPE-172527-MS 11

Figure 6 —Types of bow springs.

● RIH and tagged at 46 ft. Picked up and RIH to 100 ft, attempted to set the packer. Packer soft set
with 20,000 lbf slack-off weight. Once more weight was applied, packer slid down hole. POOH
to surface.
● Inspection showed that six slips were sheared off the packer (Fig. 7) despite the double J-slot
action mechanism due to changes in ID of tubing packer. Switched to RIH position from depth of
43 to 46 ft depth, and slips were sheared-off once diameter decreased again.

Figure 7—Spring fingers and missing slips.

12 SPE-172527-MS

Note: While closing BOP pipe/slip rams after this run, the BOP could not close completely, CT had be
moved 1 to 2 ft up and down before it was possible to close the BOP. Later, it was found that broken slips
were against the BOP rams, and the velocity string was damaged and collapsed during BOP closure.
● Replaced broken slips, installed bow springs with 4 3/8-in. OD and RIH to set packer.
● Tagged at 50 ft and unable to pass with several attempts. Cycled packer J-slot mechanism in the
interval from 36 ft to 50 ft to switch to RIH mode. Packer shifted to setting position between tubing
hanger and crossover at 46 ft. POOH to surface.
● Inspection showed two sheared and missing slips.
● Redressed the packer and taped bow springs up in RIH positions to prevent switching while going
through 5 1/8-in. ID valve and at depth of 46 ft.
● RIH to 85 ft, cycled four times to set the packer. Successfully set packer with 45,000 lbf slack-off
weight on it.
● Rigged down CT equipment and tower.
● RIH with 1.88-in. OD gauge cutter on slickline and tagged inside velocity string 13 ft below
packer/hanger. Suspected that velocity string was damaged while closing BOP pipe/slips rams
against sheared-off slips.
Results
● Even though the velocity string was successfully set in place, it was impossible to RIH with
slickline and retrieve the DFCVs from the X and XN-nipples in the lower BHA.
● Large 7-in. OD bow springs were shown to be ineffective for 4.5-in. tubing with 3.92-in. OD. Due
to large diameter and stiffness, bow spring was bent and deformed causing the J-slot mechanism
pin to bend and malfunction.
● The setting mechanism of the packer switched to setting position due to changes in ID of the tubing
and caused shearing-off of the slips.

Attempt 3
Objectives
● Fish and retrieve the packer/hanger to surface
● Inspect the upper section of velocity string and cut the damaged section
● Replace packer with a new one
● Run and deploy velocity string
Summary of Operation
● RIH, tagged top of fishing profile at 89 ft, set down 20,000 lbf successfully latching the fishing
profile.
● POOH to surface.
● Cut 28 ft of velocity string, found damaged sections with slips imprints (Fig. 8).
SPE-172527-MS 13

Figure 8 —Velocity string damaged by packer slips jammed with BOP rams.

● Made up upper BHA with backup packer.

● RIH to 124 ft, cycled four times to switch packer to setting positions; successfully set the packer.
● POOH to surface with running CT string; rigged down CT equipment.
● RIH with 1.88-in. OD gauge cutter on slickline; successfully drifted the velocity string.
● RIH with 1.8-in. OD GS pulling tool on slickline twice and successfully retrieved DFCVs from the
lower BHA.
● Rigged up 1.5-in. CT unit; performed a lift on the well with nitrogen from 5,000 ft to 8,000 ft.
● Tested the well performance with test separator.

Results
● Velocity string was successfully run and deployed.
● Visual inspection confirmed that velocity string could not be drifted after the second attempt due
to damage of the CT with jammed packer slips.
● Equipment was trial tested; the modification made on the packer will be implemented for future
velocity-string deployments.

Results and Discussion

As a result of the velocity-string installation, a standing well that was not producing for 2 yr due to a
condensate banking problem was revitalized and put back on production with sustained gas rate of 5
MMscf/D at flowing wellhead pressure (FWHP) of 1,900 psig and condensate rate of 1,403 B/D and water
rate of 62 B/D.
During the trial test, several challenges and complications occurred, which required modifications to
be made in packer construction, procedure changes, and extra scope of work to be done.

Conclusions
The velocity-string approach has proved to be cost-effective and the most efficient solution for Saudi
Aramco gas wells with condensate banking and liquid loading problem. The approach is planned to be
implemented on several well candidates in the next 2 yr.
14 SPE-172527-MS

Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the Saudi Arabian Oil Company (Saudi Aramco) for granting
permission to present results of this work and publish this paper. The author would like to thank the
Remote Field Gas Well Completion Operation Division management and rigless sites 8 and 12 crews for
performing the job and the required testing safely. Special thanks go to many colleagues in the Remote
Field Gas Production Engineering Division for the needed support.

References
API RP 16ST, Coiled Tubing Well Control Equipment Systems, first edition. 2009. Washington, DC:
API
Butler, M.L., Trueblood, J.B., Pope, G.A. et al. 2009. A Field Demonstration of a New Chemical
Stimulation Treatment for Fluid-Blocked Gas Wells. Paper Presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 4 –7 October. SPE-125077-MS. doi
10.2118/125077-MS.
Garzon, F.O., Al-Anazi, H.A., Leal, J.A., et al. 2006. Laboratory and Field Trial Results of Conden-
sate Banking Removal in Retrograde Gas Reservoirs: Case History. Presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 24 –27 September. SPE-102558-
MS. doi: 10.2118/102558-MS.
S.A. Asel, F.A. Gomez et al, 2014. An Innovative Integrated Methodology to Deliquify Gas Well
Using In-Well Live Performance Coiled Tubing for Velocity String Selection and Deployment: A
Case Study in Saudi Arabia. Presented at SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing & Well Intervention
Conference & Exhibition held in The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 25–26 March 2014. SPE-168258