Under-balanced well bore cleanout and production evaluation technology

Presentation Overview

• Technology Validation• How It Works• Applications• Benefits • Case Histories & Successes

Questions Surrounding Horizontal Well designs

• How long should the lateral section be in a given

formation?

• Is drainage making it to the toe of the lateral?

• Liner design, open hole packer ball frac,

cemented liner etc.

• Optimize stimultion size and type

• What is the PBHP and inflow characteristics at

specific intervals or stages? How does this

correlate with frac type / volume and strip log.

• Flow characteristics of fluid and solids in a

horizontal liner

Drainage Area

Hz well information? How do we gather it?

High water cut

gas inflow

High oil cut $$

• Sub-hydrostatic or under-pressured reservoirs

• Horizontal and extended reach well designs

• Velocities in liners allow for solids settling

• Lateral producing interval may not be 100% utilized (undulations)

• Investigating inflow characteristics on non-flowing oil wells

Technology Validation

Technology Validation

• Alternative processes such as;• Fluid circulation• Coiled tubing gas/foam cleanouts• Tubing bailing• Swabbing all have limitations and

can no longer be generally applied to our complex horizontal well designs.– Adds pressure to formation (over-balanced, potential

formation damage due to fluid loss)– Does not work in Hz– Costly to deploy– Slow process ---› expensive

How it Works

• This systems utilizes two unique technologies that have revolutionized horizontal well bore intervention and operations. Our JetVak™ system utilizes Dual Coiled tubing technology as well as specifically engineered jet pump to remove solids and liquids from well bores. The primary function of this technology is to create a low pressure environment in the well bore to pump the fluid and/or solids to surface up the second conduit in the Dual Coil.

Dual Coiled Tubing

Venturi principle, applies to JetPak & JetVak

Gas Flow

Power FluidPower Fluid

FormationFluid

Fluid Fluid ReturnsReturns

Power FluidPower Fluid

FormationFluid

Power FluidPower Fluid

FormationFluid

Fluid Fluid ReturnsReturns

PumpIntake

Pump Discharge

InjectionPressure

Velocity SuctionPressure

Surface ReturnsPressure

Velocity

JetPak™ Pump Efficiency Curve

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 180000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Jet Pump Performance (4,000 psi Max Injection)3550m 1.25x2.375 CCT at 1500 m TVD

A:2

A+:2

A+:3

B:3

B:4

B:5

C:3

C:4

C:5

BHP (kPa)

Pro

du

cti

on

Ra

te (

lpm

)

Applications

• Horizontal frac or produced sand cleanout• Horizontal production evaluation (isolated)

– Identify water sources or re-stimulation intervals

• Drilling fluid damage mitigation and cleanout• Liner failure cleanout and detection• Injection well cleanout• High volume and high permeability well cleanout• SAGD or cyclic steam flood well cleanout

Alberta Research Counsel study on “tight Oil”

Moving Solids?

• Rule of thumb: Vertical well: 1 ft/s Hz well: 3 ft/s

• Durand Equation (with Wasp correction for particle size)

Vt = F[2g(s-1)D]1/2 (dp/D)1/6

F, factor between 0.4 and 1.5

s = rsolid / rf luid

dp, Solids diameter, m

D, Pipe Diameter, m

Production Rates in 4" Hz Casing Needed to Move Sand

3500

4100

46004800

5800

6500

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

100 mesh 40/70 20/40Pr

oduc

tion:

G

as (m

scfd

) ,

Oil

(bbl

d)

Gas Oil

Production Rates through a 5/8" Perforation Needed to Move Sand

45 55 6065 75 85

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

100 mesh 40/70 20/40

Prod

uctio

n:

Gas

(msc

fd)

, O

il (b

bld)

Gas Oil

Alberta Research Counsel study on “tight Oil”

Moving Solids?

Production Cleanouts well #1• Quick prod. decline, conventional 38.1mm coil / N2 cleanouts attempted in 2012, sand bridge at

914m, sub-hydrostatic res., no fluid, gas or solids circulation, 0.24 psi/ft or 5.43kPa/meter• Quantum JetVak CO conducted on Jan 23rd.

• Pump rate 86lpm, venturi volume 69lpm, jet volume 17lpm• Return rate 120lpm, gross return rate 51lpm, net return rate 34lpm. • Avg sand cut 0.75% of gross, highest sand cut 7%.• 20% gross oil cuts from toe of well, net 71% oil cut• Sand removed from well during this job 2.4m3 or 3840kgs.• 27% of liner volume assuming no inflow

Production Cleanouts well #1• Quick prod. decline, conventional 38.1mm coil / N2 cleanouts attempted in 2012, sand bridge at

3000’, sub-hydrostatic res., no fluid, gas or solids circulation, 0.24 psi/ft.• Quantum JetVak CO conducted on Jan 23rd.

• Pump rate 22.6gpm, venturi volume 18gpm, jet volume 4.6glpm• Return rate 31gpm, gross return rate 13gpm, net return rate 8.4pm. • Avg sand cut 0.75% of gross, highest sand cut 7%.• 20% gross oil cuts from toe of well, net 71% oil cut• Sand removed from well during this job 631g or 1745lbs.• 27% of liner volume assuming no inflow

Production Cleanouts well #1• Quick prod. decline, previous 1.5” coil / N2 cleanouts attempted in 2012, sand bridge at 3000’,

sub-hydrostatic res., no fluid circulation, 0.24 psi/ft.• Quantum JetVak CO conducted on Jan 23rd.

• Pump rate 22.6 gpm, return rate 31.5 gpm, net return rate 8.9 gpm. • Avg sand cut 0.75% of gross, highest sand cut 7%.• 20% gross oil cuts from toe of well, net 84%• Sand removed from well during this job 5280 lbs. 27% of liner volume assuming no inflow• Post JetVak jobs in this field seem to reduce water cuts and increase oil productivity.

• Quick prod. decline, conventional 38.1mm coil / N2 cleanouts attempted in 2012, sand bridge at 914m, sub-hydrostatic res., no fluid, gas or solids circulation, 0.24 psi/ft or 5.43kPa/meter

• Quantum JetVak CO conducted on Jan 23rd. • Pump rate 86lpm, venturi volume 69lpm, jet volume 17lpm• Return rate 120lpm, gross return rate 51lpm, net return rate 34lpm. • Avg sand cut 0.75% of gross, highest sand cut 7%.• 20% gross oil cuts from toe of well, net 71% oil cut• Sand removed from well during this job 2.4m3 or 3840kgs.• 27% of liner volume assuming no inflow• Post JetVak jobs in this field seem to reduce water cuts and increase oil productivity.

Production Cleanouts well #1• Quick prod. decline, conventional 38.1mm coil / N2 cleanouts attempted in 2012, sand bridge at

3000’, sub-hydrostatic res., no fluid, gas or solids circulation, 0.24 psi/ft.• Quantum JetVak CO conducted on Jan 23rd.

• Pump rate 22.6gpm, venturi volume 18gpm, jet volume 4.6glpm• Return rate 31gpm, gross return rate 13gpm, net return rate 8.4gpm. • Avg sand cut 0.75% of gross, highest sand cut 7%.• 20% gross oil cuts from toe of well, net 71% oil cut• Sand removed from well during this job 15bbl or 1745lbs.• 27% of liner volume assuming no inflow• Post JetVak jobs in this field seem to reduce water cuts and increase oil productivity.

Production Cleanouts well #2

• Production pump issues, milled out and conventional CO attempted no circulation of fluid or sand.• Quantum JetVak CO RIH #1 conducted May 01 2013, tagged solid obstruction 1610m.• Mill re-run on May 3 to PBTD.• JetVak re-run (Vac only) on May 6, bridge and 7% solids at the 1585m again, correlates with a low

spot as per deviation survey.• Pump rate 76lpm, venturi volume 65lpm, jet volume 11lpm.• Return rate 89lpm, gross return rate 24lpm, net return rate 13lpm. • Avg sand cut 0.25% of gross, highest sand cut 18%.• Once through this depth strong gas inflow from all ports to the toe, indicting they have not

produced since drilled. • Sand removed from well during this job 1.0m3 or 1600kgs. • 15% of liner volume, assuming no inflow.

Production Cleanouts well #2

• Production pump issues, milled out and conventional CO attempted no circulation of fluid or sand.• Quantum JetVak CO RIH #1 conducted May 01 2013, tagged solid obstruction 5280ft.• Mill re-run on May 3 to PBTD.• JetVak re-run (Vac only) on May 6, bridge and 7% solids at the 5200ft. again, correlates with a low

spot or trap as per deviation survey.• Pump rate 18gpm, venturi volume 18gpm, jet volume 0gpm.• Return rate 25pm, net return rate 7pm. • Avg sand cut 0.25% of gross, highest sand cut 18%.• Once through this depth strong gas inflow from all ports to the toe, indicting they have not

produced since well was stimulated. • Sand removed from well during this job 6.2bbl or 3520lbs. • 15% of liner volume, assuming no inflow.

Partially plugged intake

Well bore cooling due to significant gas inflow,Immediate cooling effects as the jet pump passes ports

• Production pump issues, milled out and conventional CO attempted no circulation of fluid or sand.• Quantum JetVak CO RIH #1 conducted May 01 2013, tagged solid obstruction 1610m.• Mill re-run on May 3 to PBTD.• JetVak re-run (Vac only) on May 6, bridge and 7% solids at the 1585m again, correlates with a low

spot as per deviation survey.• Pump rate 67lpm, venturi volume 67lpm, jet volume 0lpm.• Return rate 89lpm, net return rate 22lpm. • Avg sand cut 0.25% of gross, highest sand cut 18%.• Once through this depth strong gas inflow from all ports to the toe, indicting they have not

produced since drilled. • Sand removed from well during this job 1.0m3 or 1600kgs. • 15% of liner volume, assuming no inflow.

• Production pump issues, milled out and conventional CO attempted no circulation of fluid or sand.• Quantum JetVak CO RIH #1 conducted May 01 2013, tagged solid obstruction 5280ft.• Mill re-run on May 3 to PBTD.• JetVak re-run (Vac only) on May 6, bridge and 7% solids at the 5200ft. again, correlates with a low

spot or trap as per deviation survey.• Pump rate 17.6gpm, venturi volume 17.6gpm, jet volume 0gpm.• Return rate 23pm, net return rate 6.4pm. • Avg sand cut 0.25% of gross, highest sand cut 18%.• Once through this depth strong gas inflow from all ports to the toe, indicting they have not

produced since well was stimulated. • Sand removed from well during this job 6.2bbl or 3520lbs. • 15% of liner volume, assuming no inflow.

Re-stimulation candidate

Drilling fluid/solids cleanout and damage mitigation

• Formation pore pressure during drilling/fluid losses• Filter cake/damage• How is the “breaker” deployed• How is IP and long term production affected

• The JetVak system creates a localized drawdown in the liner or open hole toremove possible damaged areas and establish inflow throughout the entire lateral

Current producing well comparison

total production

Current producing well comparison

water production

• Difficulty maintaining production and burning P.C pumps up due to lack of fluid level.• Quantum JetVak CO conducted September 2010, 2.5 m3 or 2000kgs of formation sand removed.• Friction reducing and oil dispersing chemical used in the power fluid.• Pump rate 88lpm, venturi volume 68lpm, jet volume 20lpm.• Return rate 95lpm, gross return rate 27lpm, net return rate 7.0lpm. • Avg sand cut 3.25% of gross, highest sand cut 27%.• Sand removed from well during this job 2.5m3 or 4100kgs.• 31% of liner volume, assuming no inflow.

• Difficulty maintaining production and burning P.C pumps up due to lack of fluid level.• Quantum JetVak CO conducted September 2010.• Friction reducing and oil dispersing chemical used in the power fluid.• Pump rate 23gpm, venturi volume 17gpm, jet volume 6gpm.• Return rate 25gpm, gross return rate 8gpm, net return rate 2gpm. • Avg sand cut 3.25% of gross, highest sand cut 27%.• 15bbl or 8800lbs. of formation sand removed• 31% of liner volume, assuming no inflow.

Field Operations

Data Collection

Data Collection

Data Collection

Conclusions

• Horizontal wells are much more complex than we give them credit for, there for our processes and tools that we use on them must also be more investigative and complex.

• As reservoir pressures deplete the success ratio of existing cleanout technology will be reduced.

• Production evaluating will become more common as we identify water sources and re-stimulation intervals.

Thank you for your time. I invite any questions.

Presented by: Steven Winkler

Adding value through technology