IADC/SPE-191006-MS

Application of Velocity String to Improve Productivity from Bottom pays

after Hydraulic Fracturing in Multilayered Low Permeability Reservoir

Saurabh Anand, Nitin Johri, Krishana Chandak, Rachit Vijay, Shobhit Tiwari, Avinash Bohra, Utkarsh Vijayvargiya,
and Jivesh Khemchandani, Cairn Oil & Gas; Ishaan Singh and Arpit Agarwal, Schlumberger

Copyright 2018, IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference held in Bangkok, Thailand, 27–29 August 2018.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/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 International Association of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction
by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the International Association of Drilling Contractors or 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 International Association of Drilling
Contractors or 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 IADC/SPE copyright.

Abstract
Raageshwari gas field is located in RJ-ON 90/1 Block in western India with Cairn Oil & Gas, a vertical of
Vedanta Limited as operator of the field. Multistage hydraulic fracturing is required to achieve commercial
production from the highly laminated retrograde gas condensate reservoir. It has been observed in almost all
wells that the top high PI zones produce a majority of the gas. The wells have a water column across bottom
few fracs which prohibits production from these zones. Water unloading through increased drawdown was
not successful because of higher PI of the upper fracs. Coiled tubing-based nitrogen lift of the water column
is not commercially feasible. It is important to find a low-cost solution for water unloading since bottom
zones account for approximately 30% of total gas in place. A solution has been developed using a customized
velocity string design, which can unload the water while maintaining high well production.
Conventional velocity strings are only installed in late life of gas wells when liquid loading is observed.
These conventional designs limit the maximum rate to 2-3 MMSCFD and therefore cannot be used in
Raageshwari gas field for water unloading as high individual well rates (8 to 12 MMSCFD) is required to
meet field plateau production. After reviewing various options, an innovative and unique velocity string
system design was developed which incorporates a customized surface spool and string hanging system.
This customized design allows combined or independent gas flow conduits as described below:
A. Through the annulus of velocity string and tubing when higher gas rates are required.
B. Through the velocity string to facilitate liquid unloading due to high gas velocity.
C. Production from both the conduits to meet higher demands than the annulus flow alone.
Well integrity was assured by maintaining two independent barriers during commissioning, production
phase and also during future string retrieval.
This paper will discuss in detail the design considerations of the velocity string and surface hanger system
to achieve liquid unloading while maintaining high rate gas production. It will also have details on the dual
barrier selection process and the design customization that have been done to ensure cyclic liquid unloading
and high rate gas production.
2 IADC/SPE-191006-MS

This innovative velocity string design is technically a dual completion with a much lower cost and
footprint. The same design can be implemented across a wide variety of applications to address well integrity
issues, selective zonal production etc. The application of this design in Raageshwari field will ensure
planned recovery of gas from the field and will also support plateau production phase. This design can be
an efficient and economic technique to develop similar fields.

Introduction
Raageshwari reservoir comprises two sections: Bottom Volcanics and Top Clastic sands (Fatehgarh). The
volcanics are divided into two sub-reservoirs: Felsic and Basalt. Permeability of all three reservoirs:
Fatehgarh, Basalt and Felsic is poor although Fatehgarh being clastic reservoir is better than the volcanics.
Hydraulic fracturing is required to achieve commercial scale production from these reservoirs. To attain
greater kH coverage, limited entry technique has been successfully implemented in the field (SPE 184846,
SPE 185374). It was observed post flowback that bottom volcanic sands in most wells are not contributing
in gas production. This was verified by time lapsed production logging done in the wells. In addition to
meet the production profile, it was essential that all wells keep producing at high rates. Considering all the
factors, it is decided that completion technique in the wells will be modified. The new completion technique
was implemented in 2 wells on a pilot basis and the results will be evaluated for field-wise implementation.
The new completion design have a velocity string set-up to unload liquids from bottom of the well. The
annular space between the velocity string and the tubing is used to produce gas at higher rates to ensure
field plateau production is maintained. There were several challenges associated with the new completion
design and these need to be addressed prior to installation in the well. This paper will review and address
these challenges. The way this paper is structured is listed as below:
1. Confirmed the well loading based on review of all production logging done in the field. Zone wise
PI was obtained in a time lapsed manner to confirm that the liquid loading problem is consistent with
time and hence needs a permanent solution.
2. Individual PI of volcanic zones from the wells which are not loaded in water was obtained and this PI
was compared to the volcanic zones which were submerged in liquid. Difference in these PI values
confirmed that reservoir quality is not an issue in well production. This analysis also confirmed that
post-liquid unloading the volcanic zones will produce as expected.
3. A major inference that was be concluded by review and analysis of the above two points was that
the poor PI of the bottom volcanic zones can be due to the improper post – frac clean-up of these
bottom volcanic zones.
4. Literature review of well loading analytical models and its applications was done. Dynamic well
models were prepared to confirm liquid loading and possible solutions for well unloading.
5. Review and summary of the existing well completion philosophy was done.
6. Selection of appropriate design of velocity string that will serve the dual functions: Unloads the water
from the bottom fracs and also ensure high rate production from top clastic zones.
7. Selection of appropriate metallurgy and specifications of the velocity string to ensure it is capable of
withstanding the loads encountered during the well life-cycle.
8. Modifications of the existing wellhead and production tree (surface X-mas tree) for installation of the
modified velocity string system.
9. Field operational procedure for the installation of the set-up considering HSE as top priority.
10. Economics of the entire operation was checked and return on investment will be checked to confirm
field application.
The above points were used to select the two candidate wells out of the existing 30 wells in the field
which are ideal as a pilot for the installation of the new completion design in Raageshwari gas field. The
IADC/SPE-191006-MS 3

same completion design will be implemented all across the field as a standard if the pilot designs are found
successful (techno-commercial success) in water unloading and in ensuring production continuity from the
two pilot wells.

Time lapsed Production logging and PI analysis

Production logging data from all the 30 wells was reviewed and analyzed. Production logging data was
done in the wells immediately after the well flowback and thereafter every 3 to 6 months. A time lapsed PI
analysis was done using the data. Kindly refer Annexure I for production logging results and analysis from
4 sample wells. Kindly note that the key parameters of the production logging survey such as tubing head
pressure, well rates etc is mentioned in the analysis report as required/applicable?. Salient points that can
be observed from this data interpretation are as below:
1. Majority of the gas production is from the top Fatehgarh and top Basalt layers.
2. Minimal production is observed from the bottom Felsic layers.
3. Percentage from various zones is different for various wells. This can be attributed to the different
spatial locations and hence varying geological / petrophysical properties of the reservoir.
4. Liquid accumulation (s.g > 0.8) is observed across bottom 2- 3 fracs in each well.
5. In the wells which are water loaded, the liquid level and contribution from the water loaded Felsic
sands in the wells do not change with time
6. Liquid level in the wells also do not change on increasing the drawdown in the wells. It is to be noted
from the time lapsed production logging, that the contribution from the zones below the liquid level
is not changed even at higher off-take rates (increased drawdown).
7. One additional information that can be gathered from the production logging analysis, is the
contribution from majority of the stages and clusters in each well. This is important as it highlights
the success of the limited entry technique of Hydrofracturing where the entire gross interval of the
reservoir is divided into stages with each stage further divided into perforation clusters.
Next exercise that was done as part of the research and data analysis was determining the Productivity
Index (PI) of each individual fracture stage.
Also since the bottom-hole pressure in these wells is > 3000 psi, the PI can be calculated as per the below
equation: J = Qg/ (Pr - Pwf)
The influx of gas from each respective stage and the corresponding flowing bottomhole pressure was
obtained by production logging data. Stage wise PI was calculated post each production logging and the
results were plotted against each other. Refer below figure 1 where the results of the time lapsed production
logging has been plotted for Well RA – 4. Similar plots were prepared for other wells as well, however
RA-4 is being illustrated, as it has maximum number of production logging data sets.
4 IADC/SPE-191006-MS

Figure 1—Time lapse PI analysis

Salient points which can be noted from this time lapse PI analysis are as below:
1. As mentioned previously, minimal contribution is observed from the bottom two fracture treatments
done in the volcanics (Felsic – 1 and Basalt - 1).
2. PI of the bottom zones appear to be low and do not improve with time.
3. The top Basalt and Fatehgarh sands have high PI and show good production. These high PI zones
show rapid decline in PI post commencement of production. This is a common behavior associated
with tight sands.
Poor PI of the volcanic sands can be attributed to one of the following three reasons. The same was
discussed at length with subject matter experts and also relevant technical literature was referred:
1. Improper frac jobs: In case the hydraulic fracturing stimulation treatments were not executed as per
program and required amount of proppant could not be placed in the fracture then this would affect the
productivity of the zone. However, detailed analysis of fracturing jobs done for the stages was carried
out and it was concluded that there was no issue with the fracturing treatments and the desired quantity
of proppant was placed in most the volcanic sands. The two stages being referred to above have also
standard frac jobs without any issues. Post fracture pressure match also illustrates that desired fracture
geometry was achieved for these zones. Hence it can be concluded that poor hydraulic fracturing is
not a reason for the poor performance of the volcanic zones.
2. Poor reservoir quality: One of the possible reasons for low productivity from bottom volcanics may be
the poor quality of reservoir. However, the Log PI as obtained from various petrophysical properties
of the reservoir is good and many folds higher than the measured PI from the production log. The
reservoir quality is in line with the top volcanic sands. Also, an important data analysis was carried
which clearly illustrated that the rock quality in volcanics is not an issue. The same has been discussed
in detail in the next section.
3. Poor post frac clean-up of the bottom zones: Post frac, the wells were lined up though a surface
well testing spread and were flowed back. Oil, gas and water returns were separated at surface and
measured. It was observed on an average, the frac fluid recovery was in range of 20 – 30% which
is good for tight gas reservoirs. However most of the frac fluid was recovered from the clastic and
IADC/SPE-191006-MS 5

top most volcanics. It is believed that post gas breakout from the top zones, required drawdown was
not available to the bottom-zones hence these zones could not clean-up properly. It because of this
reason that these zones have poor PI.
It is believed that if the completion design could be altered which aids the clean-up of the bottom zones
then the PI of these zones would go up and will ensure expected production from these zones. It is therefore
required to propose and implement suitable velocity string design which would:
a. Ensure production continuity from the already cleaned up zones at the top so that the field production
profile can be maintained.
b. Enable the clean-up of the bottom volcanic zones so that it can contribute to production post clean-up.
The fact that the bottom zones have not been cleaned properly and require clean-up was illustrated by
nitrogen assisted well clean-up job. In this operation, nitrogen was pumped at high rate though a coiled
tubing stationed at well bottom. This created additional drawdown and liquid returns were observed on
surface. However, a pre and post job production log clearly illustrated that the liquid level remained same
pre and post job. What the nitrogen lift job effectively did was to lift the existing water from wellbore (5-
10 bbls). However, the fracs were still not cleaned up. On an average it is estimated that each frac has ~
1000 bbls recoverable water. It is impractical and expensive to conduct nitrogen lifting job to unload water
from the bottom few fracs in 5 – 10 bbls batches. The below figure 2 shows the pre and post production
logging results.

Figure 2—Production logging results pre and post nitrogen lift job

PI analysis of the volcanic sands: Pre and Post Clean-up

As mentioned in point 2 of the above section, an important data analysis exercise was carried out which
clearly illustrated that the rock quality in volcanics is not an issue and zones will produce as expected post
clean-up of the frac fluid from the created fracture. This section will have the details of the data analysis
done and the inferences that was gathered from the same.
There has been some key differences in the way few wells (e.g. RA-5, RA-6) have been completed in
Raageshwari field. These wells are located in a geologically similar area to the wells RA-1, 2, 3 & 4 which
were discussed before (having liquid loading issues). The key differences in the way RA-5 and RA-6 were
completed are as below:
6 IADC/SPE-191006-MS

1. The Felsic reservoir in these wells were hydro-fractured and flowed back separately.
2. Separate flowback on the Felsics ensured that the clean-up of the zone was good.
3. Post flowback of Felsics, the remaining Basalt and Fatehgarh reservoir were fractured after which the
wells were flowed commingled.
Production logging data obtained from these wells showed that the bottom Felsics were contributing
significantly to the total gas production. Kindly refer Annexure 1 (v) for the production logging results of
well RA-5. It can be noted that there is minimal to no liquid column in the well bottom. The PI of the Felsic
reservoir as calculated from the production logging was also significantly higher than the rest of the field.
As an analytical exercise, the PI of all Felsic stages was gathered and separated in two categories:
1. PI obtained from Felsic zones which are below liquid level (From wells such as RA-1, 2, 3, 4)
2. PI obtained from Felsic zones which don't have a liquid column (majority belonging to the wells
which had the different completion technique such as RA-5, 6).
The above data set was plotted in a single graph to show the separation / grouping trends. Refer the below
Figure 3 for the graph. As evident a very distinct trend was observed which was that PI of all Felsic which
were above the liquid level were higher than those below liquid column. This clearly indicated that reservoir
quality is not an issue with the Felsics, but the main cause of poor production from the Felsic reservoir
was the improper clean-up of the fracture. The reason for improper clean-up of the felsic zone has been
explained in the preceding section.

Figure 3—Summary of Felsic PI's

It is to be noted that the same completion philosophy of staged development (as in RA-5, 6) could not
be implemented field wise due to numerous operational constraints, SIMOPS etc. Economical models have
shown that the staged completion model (separate fracturing, flowback and clean-up model) will alter the
"Factory mode" of fracturing and flowback (completing all the zones in a single visit) and will result in
significant increase in Project cost.
The economic analysis (will be done later in the paper) will illustrate that the cost of installation of
the velocity string in the water loaded wells on a campaign basis will be less than the cost of the staged
completion technique. It is also to be noted that velocity string would anyways be required in the wells at
a later stage when the gas rate declines to less than 2 MMSCFD. Hence the only economic exposure that
is being incurred is due to the following reasons:
1. Customization of the velocity string design to suit water unloading and gas production.
IADC/SPE-191006-MS 7

2. Expediting the Capex spend (The cost associated with the installation of velocity string at an early
stage of well life and compared to delaying the Capex spend by a few years when the gas rates will
drop to less than 2 MMSCFD).

Liquid Loading and Lifting Velocity Analysis

In this section, an in-depth analysis of liquid loading was done using the software's PROSPER & OLGA.
Also, the results obtained were compared to the production logging analysis. Production logging analysis
can provide the actual minimum gas rate above which no liquid accumulation has been seen in RDG wells.
Since this is a tight gas and high CGR system hence it is good technique to ensure the well model is accurate
and will provide the required information. The objective of this exercise was to determine the following:
1. To determine the minimum gas rate to prevent liquid loading in the velocity string during the clean-up
of the bottom Felsics. The production logging results were then checked to determine if this minimum
rate is available from the Felsic zones. This analysis was done for two possible size of the velocity
string: 1.75" and 2".
2. Simulation results were also checked for maximum possible rates through the different sizes of
velocity string.
3. Simulation was then done to ensure what will be the maximum rate feasible through the annulus of
the possible velocity string sizes and the 3.5" tubing. This analysis is very critical as this annulus will
be the primary conduit for gas production after the Felsic clean-up has been done through the velocity
string. Hence this annulus should be able to produce gas at expected rates to meet the production
profile. On an average this gas rate for RDG wells is 6 – 8 MMSCFD.
It is to be noted that the following flow conduits were analyzed for the above simulation.

• CASE I: Flow through the 3.5" production tubing.

• CASE II: Flow through the velocity string.

• CASE III: Flow through the annulus of velocity string and the production tubing.

Refer below Figure 4 for the illustration of the above production conduits:

Figure 4—Possible flow conduits for velocity string completion

The simulation results have been summarized in the below tables.

SIMULATION 1:
8 IADC/SPE-191006-MS

Objective – To match the simulation model with the production logging results to obtain minimum rates
above which there will not be liquid loading. Refer Table 1.

Table 1—Critical gas rate calculation in 3.5" Tubing

SIMULATION 2:
Objective – To determine the gas rates above which there will not be liquid loading in different sizes of
velocity string. Refer Table 2.

Table 2—Critical gas rate calculation for 1.75" & 2" Coiled tubing

SIMULATION 3:
Objective – To determine the maximum gas rates feasible in the annulus of the tubing and different sizes
of velocity string. Refer Table 3

Table 3—Max gas rate through CT - tubing annulus

Conclusion from the above flow simulations:

1. 1.75" size coil tubing is most suitable for the velocity string application in RDG. The critical velocity
required is low and hence there would be no liquid loading as the gas rate requirement is minimal
which can/will be provided by the Felsic zone.
2. The gas rate than can be achieved in the annulus of 1.75" and 3.5" tubing is sufficient and within
expected gas rates for RDG wells. The gas rates in the annulus are on the lower side for 2" coil tubing
hence are not suitable as velocity string.
IADC/SPE-191006-MS 9

In addition to the above, various flow simulations were done using the commercially available software
PROSPER to evaluate performance of different string size and iterations were run on several parameters.
Kindly refer Annexure 6 for details on the same.

Different designs of Velocity String

Velocity string in not a new completion technique and has been used in the past for liquid unloading in old gas
wells for production continuity. Conventionally these designs have been simple in design and installation.
In principle, there are two possible technique to install the velocity string:
1. Packer type: In this design the coiled tubing acting as velocity string is hung from a packer which is
set inside the production tubing at shallow depth.
2. Hanger type: In this design the coiled tubing acting as velocity string is hung from a tubing hanger
which is landed in/on the wellhead profile.
Both the above installations can take place with or without killing the well. However, it has been
historically observed that well killing is not a suitable solution for these fracced wells in RDG. It is because
high losses are observed during well killing. Because of this, loss control pills need to be pumped in the
well which seriously damages the reservoir. In addition, it is very challenging to revive these wells to the
same potential. Refer below Figure 5 for the two designs.

Figure 5—Possible Velocity string designs – CT Packer and CT Hanger

Both the above designs are not suitable for RDG application. This is because in both the above designs
there is only one flow conduit i.e. the coiled tubing itself. The annular space between the coiled tubing and
the tubing is packed off by the packer (Design 1) and hanger (Design 2). This limits the maximum rate
which can be flown though the velocity string. Please refer the simulation results obtained in the previous
section of this paper.
As explained previously, the main design consideration for the velocity string technology in RDG was
that there has to be two flow paths: for water unloading and for high rate gas production. With the above
considerations, a new completion was to be designed which can achieve both the above objectives. In this
design the coiled tubing is hung on a hanger which lands inside a spool. This spool have side outlet valves
10 IADC/SPE-191006-MS

through which the gas flow in the coiled tubing – tubing annulus can be achieved. Refer below figure 6 for
the specialized completion design to suit the requirements in RDG field.

Figure 6—RDG VS design – Customized CT Hanger with flow path along the spool side outlets.

There were several challenges associated with new concept of well design. The same is listed as below:
1. Since the wells already drilled and completed hence any changes or modifications needs to be done
with respect to the existing design i.e. the new design has to be retrofitted in the old design. The
major challenge was at the surface where the coil tubing was to be hung. It was planned that a spool
will be installed on top of the existing wellhead which will have a profile where-in the coiled tubing
hanger will land. The existing wellhead has a 3-1/8" seal sub which provides a secondary seal (the
primary seal being the metal ring gasket). Two barrier system is required considering these are high
pressure gas wells. Hence the spool had to be customized to have the same connection set-up as the
production tree.
2. RDG gas wells have high PI post fracturing and it has been historically observed that well killing has
been a major challenge during any workover operations. This is basically due to extensive fluid losses
in the fractured system. To prevent the losses, various LCM pills such as calcium carbonate had to
be used. These LCM pills caused major productivity damage in the wells. Hence, it was decided that
the velocity string installation will be carried out without well killing i.e. in a live well. This made the
operations much more complex but it ensured that no damage is done to the well. This also made it an
interesting case as very few cases have been noted where the operation has been done in a live well.
Two independent pressure tested barriers were in-place at all times during the installation procedure.
3. Considering the well depth and operational procedure, appropriate grade of coiled tubing pipe was
to be selected. This pipe should be thick enough to withstand all the stresses during well lifecycle.
However, it should not be thick enough reducing the internal diameter of the pipe leading to unwanted
reduction in the gas flow rate through the coiled tubing pipe. As illustrated in previous sections, the
gas flow rate through the coiled tubing pipe is very critical to ensure that adequate velocity is attained,
ensuring liquid unloading.
4. Surface production system needs to be altered to accommodate the new flow paths from the well. In
addition, the height of the X-mas tree stack was increased due to the introduction of the spool set-up
in the stack. Since the wells in RDG field are completed inside cellars the additional height of the tree
IADC/SPE-191006-MS 11

will make the production tree protrude out of the cellar. Suitable risk mitigation measures had to be
in place to ensure safe operation of these wells with new completion design.
5. A profile was required in the coiled tubing hanger at surface where a plug can be set to isolate the
surface system of the wellbore pressures. This profile is the minimum ID point for the entire string.
The same has to suitably designed and customized for RDG application.
All the above challenges and its solution will be discussed thoroughly in this research paper in subsequent
sections.

Velocity String Design for RDG Wells

In the above sections, we have discussed and concluded that wells in RDG need a unique completion design
with velocity string to ensure liquid unloading and also the design should ensure high gas rate production.
A suitable velocity string completion was proposed and the challenges in the same were listed. This and
subsequent few sections will discuss the design and mitigation measure of these challenges.
A draft sketch of the RDG specific completion design with velocity string was illustrated in Figure 5. We
will now go step by step to the details of the completion design. This was further divided into the following
categories:
1. Surface hanging and production system:
a. Coiled tubing spool
b. Coiled tubing hanger
2. Downhole production system
3. Coiled tubing pipe

Surface hanging and production system: Coiled tubing spool and Coiled tubing hanger
Annexure 2 summarizes the pre and post installation set-up of the surface system. We can observe that the
additional spool has been installed between the lower master valve of the X-mas tree and the wellhead.
This spool will have customized bottom connection as discussed in the previous section. It itself needs
a lot of customization and is illustrated in the below figure 7. The key components have been explained
subsequently.

Figure 7—RDG Velocity string surface set-up designs illustrating the customized spool and CT Hanger

Key components of the RDG Velocity string surface set-up is as below:

12 IADC/SPE-191006-MS

• 3-1/8" 10K seal sub: CT spool have the 3-1/8" seal sub profile same as existing LMV. Kindly
refer the red highlighted portion in Annexure 3 (i) for illustration of the same.
• Test / vent ports for seal sub: 9/16" autoclave vent and test port to test the 3-1/8" seal sub. Kindly
refer Annexure 3 (ii) for illustration of the same.
• CT hanger spool: 4-1/16" 10K × 4-1/16" 5K: The 2 side valve are to facilitate for VS – Tubing
annulus flow. Both valves will have VR plug profile. Kindly refer the red highlighted portion in
Annexure 3 (iii) for illustration of the same.
• CT hanger adaptor 4-1/16" 10K × 3-1/8" 5K: Adaptor to seal against the CT hanger neck seals
with provision for testing thru 9/16" autoclave fittings. Kindly refer Annexure 3(iv) for illustration
of the same.
• 4-1/16" 5K CT hanger: CT hanger to hang the Velocity String. Kindly refer Annexure 3 (v) for
illustration of the same. Also refer Annexure 4 for more details on the coiled tubing hanger. The key
point to note here is the two pair of seals at the top and bottom of the hanger. This pair of seals can
be tested independently and hence will be treated as two separate barriers during the installation
phase. It is a customized and innovative approach compared to conventional coiled tubing hanger
seals designs. The key parameters have also been mentioned in the illustration in Annexure 4.
• Landing shoulder: To support the CT hanger & wt. of Velocity String. Kindly refer Annexure 3
(vi) for illustration of the same.
• Tie-down bolts: 4 nos tie-down bolts to lock the hanger in fixed position and prevent any upward
movement. Kindly refer Annexure 3 (vii) for illustration of the same.
• Hanger dual seals: Dual elastomeric seals to provide dual barrier in the annulus. Both dual seals
set will have individual 9/16" autoclave test port. Kindly refer Annexure 3 (viii) for illustration
of the same.
• Test ports for CT Hanger seals: 9/16" autoclave test port P/T the CT hanger elastomeric seals.
Kindly refer Annexure 3 (ix) for illustration of the same.
• 1-1/4" TWCV profile: 1-1/4" TWCV profile to install 1-1/4" Type "H’ TWCV. Required to isolate
the X-mas tree as the existing 3" profile in wellhead is redundant. Kindly refer Annexure 3 (x) for
illustration of the same.

Downhole production system

As discussed previously, the coiled tubing is a primary conduit to unload the water from bottom fracs. The
1.75" coiled tubing was hung from the surface system discussed in the preceding section. The bottomhole
assembly for this coiled tubing is very important and serves the following functions:
1. It ensures that adequate flow-thru area is available for gas entry and production up the coiled tubing
pipe.
2. It has a double plug system which acts as the barriers during the installation duration. These barriers
should however become redundant once the velocity string is successfully installed and the well is
put on production.
3. It has a customized set-up that can be activated to provide a dual barrier system in case the pipe is
to be retrieved for any reason.
The bottomhole assembly was needed to be customized in order to have all the above functionalities.
Detailed research and interaction with various service companies dealing with well completion equipment
was done to finalize the bottomhole assembly. The final assembly which came out of all the research and
discussion was a customized and innovative downhole assembly. This assembly would have the following
key components:
1. Connector: Connector was required to connect the bottomhole assembly to the coil tubing pipe.
IADC/SPE-191006-MS 13

2. Lock-out mandrel: The assembly has a lockout mandrel which has two flapper valves that are held
in locked position by a cylindrical piston. This piston can be moved down by dropping a ball of
appropriate size and pressuring the string. This will shear the pins holding the cylinder in position,
sliding it downwards and releasing the flappers which will now act as pressure barriers inside the
string.
3. Centralizer: A routine coiled tubing centralizer was used to ensure the coil tubing is centralized in
the tubing.
4. Dual pump out plug: This consists of two blowout plugs of different shear ratings which acts
as pressure barriers inside the string during the installation procedure. Once the velocity string
installation is complete, a surface pressure will be applied which will shear off both these blowout
plugs and hence ensure flow passage is available for the gas through the coiled tubing. Pin selection
was done carefully considering all forces applicable. Also, an important point here was to ensure that
the load that will be encountered during the shearing off process was to be considered for pipe grade
and metallurgy selection process.
The above bottomhole assembly was selected after considering the important parameters which is
applicable for all well completion items such as yield strength, tensile strength, torqueing requirement,
maximum OD etc. Kindly refer below figure 8 for details on the bottomhole assembly to be used for the
velocity string application and also refer Annexure 5 for details on activation procedure of the specific
elements.

Figure 8—Details of the bottomhole assembly to be used for the velocity string application

The next key component in the completion design is the coiled tubing pipe selection. Since this is a very
important component and requires considerable work hence it will be discussed in detail in the next section.

Coiled Tubing Pipe Selection for Velocity String of RDG Wells

The following have been established in the preceding sections:
1. Velocity string installation is recommended as a field trial as a solution to liquid loading and bottom
frac clean-ups.
2. Velocity string design has to be unique: The inner string is to be used for liquid unloading and the
outer annulus will be used for high gas rate production.
14 IADC/SPE-191006-MS

3. Customized surface hanging and downhole tools are to be used in order to achieve the above objective.
This section will deal with the challenging aspect of selecting the correct pipe grade and metallurgy for
the velocity string. This is important because the pipe which is to be selected has to ensure the following:
1. Ensure maximum possible ID is available for gas flow.
2. Pipe to withstand all expected loads during well life cycle.
3. Pipe to withstand the extreme loads during the installation and well activation phase.
The coiled tubing during its entire well life experiences tension, collapse and burst. Collapse is a difficult
failure mode to predict accurately because it depends on factors that are seldom known accurately. These
factors include tubing ovality, yield stress, and wall thickness. The maximum tension in a CT string acts at
surface just below the velocity string hanging point. The collapse strength of the coiled tubing decreases
with increase in tension, hence there will be maximum collapse strength derating at CT hanging point.
This section will describe the process for coiled tubing selection for Velocity string installation. The
primary objective of the whole exercise was to analyze the collapse load acting on the 1.75" coiled tubing
during well life. The below are the critical load scenarios that were simulated in the WellCat software
(leading commercially available pipe movement software):-
1. 1.75" CT plugged at bottom with zero internal pressure
2. 1.75" CT plugged at bottom and CT is completely filled with water.
3. Breaking dual-pump-out-plug
After executing several iterations in the WellCat with different coiled tubing, 1.75" HS-80, 2.059 ppf,
and 0.118" coiled tubing was qualifying all the above critical load scenarios. The yield strength of the
coiled tubing was 80000 psi. In the WellCat modelling the collapse strength of the coiled tubing was taken
corresponding to 1% ovality.
The problem with the above WellCat model was that it interpreted collapse failure in the 1.75" CT above
1% ovality. However, the dedicated software's for coiled tubing available with various service providers like
CoilCADE and IWI was predicting that the above coiled tubing will sustain collapse even @ 2% ovality.
Hence it was essential to determine the reason for this discrepancy.
The below figure shows the tension throughout the depth of the well acting on the 1.75" CT which is
plugged at bottom. The weight of the 3560 m of 1.75" CT is (2.059*3560*3.281) = 24000 lbs.
The below Figure 9 shows that the load conditions defined in the WellCat was not able generate the
piston effect on coiled tubing due to the reservoir pressure acting on the plug installed at the bottom of the
1.75" coiled tubing.
IADC/SPE-191006-MS 15

Figure 9—Axial load plot for 1.75" CT plugged at bottom

On the basis of the above observation a custom load was defined with plug inside the coiled tubing and
below were the results obtained. Refer Figure 10.

Figure 10—Axial load plot for 1.75" CT with new defined custom load

The revised load conditions in the WellCat resulted in decrease of the tension in 1.75" CT at surface
by 13,000 lbs. The WellCat model was vetted by the domain experts and also various existing literature
on the subject. It was evident from the research work done that WellCat might not be giving the correct
results for velocity string case as it do not take pipe ovality in account and it is imperative to perform
manual calculations for measuring the collapse strength of coiled tubing. The below section emphasizes on
importance of ovality for modelling and the reasons for going above 1% ovality. The collapse pressure rating
is the minimum external pressure that will cause the coiled tubing walls to collapse in the absence of internal
pressure and axial loading. The collapse pressure rating of coiled tubing is highly dependent on its ovality.
16 IADC/SPE-191006-MS

The ovality and tensile force reduce the collapse pressure rating of coiled tubing. Post manufacturing,
spooling and transportation the coiled tubing, it can become oval due to bending around the reel and over
the gooseneck because of deformation. In general, for a brand new coiled tubing, the post manufacturing
ovality is less than 1%. Hence in the WellCat model the maximum ovality that was considered was of 1%
in 1.75" CT.
The API-5ST ovality tolerance for a brand new manufactured coiled tubing is 1.14%. Hence taking safety
of the entire velocity string installation in consideration, it became necessary to rectify the problems in
WellCat model or perform the manual calculations to analyze the collapse load on the coiled tubing.

Revised formula no.42 in API 5C3

The manual calculation were carried with the above revised formula no. 42 in API 5C3. This revised formula
takes in account the effect of the internal pressure in pipe on the collapse strength of pipe. This formula can
be used to calculate the factor for de-rated yield strength of the pipe with axial load and internal pressure.
As the relation between the yield strength and the collapse strength is linear, it can be used to calculate the
derated collapse strength of the pipe.

Manual Calculation results validation

Post completion of the manual calculations, it was necessary to validate the results with a well-known data
base. Hence the collapse strength values were matched with the collapse strength values in i-handbook (a
commercially available software by Schlumberger).
The manual calculation was done to calculate the collapse strength of the coiled tubing @ 0%, 1% and
2.5% ovality under a fixed axial load. Then the collapse strength of the same coiled tubing was extracted
from the i-handbook @ 0%, 1% and 2.5% ovality under the same axial load.

Table 4—Manual Calculation result verification

There was a consistent difference of 4.7% between the results of manual calculation and i-handbook.
Refer Table 4. It was investigated further the reason for difference in both the results. Later it was discovered
that the i-handbook uses the API RP 5C7 formula for collapse calculations. The API RP 5C7 is used for
coiled tubing load calculations and it considers the ovality factor for collapse strength calculation of the
coiled tubing.

Later the entire manual calculation was carried out with the API RP 5C7 and the results of both hand
calculation and i-handbook were matching. On the basis of above encouraging results by API RP 5C7 all
the critical collapse load scenarios were simulated. The results of the above calculation confirmed that the
selected coiled tubing will sustain the collapse load even at 2% ovality.
IADC/SPE-191006-MS 17

Pipe selection key points

1. 1.75" HS-80, 2.059 ppf, 0.118" CT was decided to be used as a Velocity String.
2. As per the WellCat model, the 1.75" HS-80, 2.059 ppf, 0.118" will collapse above 1% ovality.
3. The API-5ST ovality tolerance for a brand new manufactured coiled tubing is 1.14%.
4. The collapse strength of the coiled tubing decrease with increase in ovality and tensile load.
5. Schlumberger CoilCADE & Halliburton IWI results shows that the 1.75" HS-80, 2.059 ppf, 0.118"
coil passes all critical load scenarios even at 2% ovality.
6. Load conditions defined in the WellCat model did not incorporate the piston effect of the bottom hole
pressure on the coiled tubing. This was rectified by creating a custom load scenario in the WellCat
model.
7. WellCat is missing the revised API 5C3 formula for collapse calculations.
8. As the WellCat was not giving the proper results it was decided to carry out the manual calculations
for pipe collapse with the revised API 5C3 formula.
9. Manual calculations were carried out with the revised API 5C3 formula for collapse.
10. Manual calculation results were validated with the i-handbook data and there is a consistent difference
of 4.7%.
11. The difference between the manual calculation and i-handbook results were investigated and it was
found that the i-handbook uses the API RP 5C7 formula for collapse calculation of coiled tubing.
12. API RP 5C7 takes ovality in consideration for collapse calculation.
13. The manual calculation was redone with API RP 5C7 formula and the results of the manual
calculations and i-handbook were matching.
14. As per the manual calculation results with API RP 5C7 the 1.75" HS-80, 2.059 ppf, 0.118" coiled
tubing will not collapse even at 2.5% for all critical load scenarios.
15. It is recommended to use API RP 5C7 rather than API 5C3 to calculate the collapse strength of coiled
tubing as the latter do not take the ovality factor in consideration.

Operational Steps for Installation of Velocity String

Field execution steps of deployment of velocity string in well is as mentioned below. These steps mention
just the brief overview. A much-detailed operational procedure will be needed for field execution.
1. Installed No-profile plug in the tubing section and Two-Way check valve in the well head profile using
Slickline. These acted as the dual barriers required for the safe removal of the existing production tree.
2. Removed existing production tree.
3. Installed coiled tubing hanger spool as discussed previously & pressure tested the 3-1/8" seal sub to
5000 psi. This ensured two pressure tested barriers.
4. Installed two dual 10,000 psi rated Combi Coiled tubing Blow-out Preventer (BOP's) above the coiled
tubing spool. These BOP's have two sets of rams: Top most blind / shear ram and bottom pipe / slip
rams. The bottom pipe / slip rams of both the BOPs were acting as a primary (closeable) barrier for
most of the operation and the top blind / shear ram were the secondary barrier during the operation.
5. Post installation of the BOPs, the NPR plug & TWCV were removed from the well using Slickline.
6. Installed hydraulic access window above the BOP's. This access window is a specialized equipment
which enables to access the pipe (required during pipe cutting, connector make-up etc) while the well
is still pressurized.
7. Remaining coiled tubing pressure control equipment (lubricators, stripper, and injector) was installed
on top of the access window. As mentioned previously, the OD, ID length of the components of
the pressure control equipment was carefully selected to ensure sufficient drift is available and also
considering various operational and safety concerns.
18 IADC/SPE-191006-MS

8. Coiled tubing bottom hole assembly as discussed in the previous sections was made up to the 1.75"
size coil tubing and run – in hole.
9. Coiled tubing to be run – in hole till target depth decided in both wells. The target depth in both
wells is below the bottommost perforation in both wells to ensure proper unloading of liquid from
the wellbore.
10. Once the coiled tubing bottom hole assembly reached the target depth, the pipe / slip rams on both the
BOP's was closed and pressure was bled-off above both the BOP's. The access window was opened.
11. Bowl and slips (suitable for the pipe type and size) was installed at the designated connection and
the pipe was cut. It is to be remembered that the dual pump out plug in the coiled tubing bottomhole
assembly was the pressure barrier inside the pipe.
12. The coiled tubing connector was made up above the cut pipe and this was followed by the coiled tubing
hanger. Coiled tubing connector was then made up to the top cut portion of the coiled tubing pipe and
this was connected to the coiled tubing hanger with a flow thru swivel to allow rotation for making up
the connections. Pressure test through the test port was done to ensure the integrity of the connections.
13. Bowl and slips was removed and pull test was done to the anticipated load value.
14. The access window was closed and the pipe / slip rams of both the BOP's was opened.
15. Coiled tubing was then lowered, and the Coiled Tubing hanger was landed on the profile inside the
coiled tubing spool. Lock screws were tightened to the required torque value. The landing profile and
the lock screws have been explained in the previous sections.
16. The bottom set of dovetail seals on the tubing hanger were pressure tested.
17. Once the pressure test was good, the pressure above the CT hanger was bled off. The pipe / slip rams
on both BOP's were be closed.
18. The CT access window was opened again and pipe was cut through the work window.
19. Pipe / slip rams on both BOPs were opened and the coiled tubing pressure control equipment was
rigged down.
20. The top connector was disconnected from the CT hanger top sub.
21. The Coiled Tubing hanger adaptor was installed on top of the hanger and the top pair of dovetail seals
was pressure tested. This has been discussed in the previous section.
22. The existing production tree was installed above the coiled tubing hanger adapter and pressure tested
against a 1.25" TWCV installed in the CT hanger profile.
23. Flowlines were connected to both the flow wing valve of the existing production tree and also to the
side outlets of the installed tubing hanger spool.
24. Pressurized the well from the flow wing valve to the calculated values in order to shear the pins of the
top and bottom plugs in the blow-out pump installed in the coiled tubing bottomhole assembly. This
allowed well fluids to enter the coiled tubing string and flow up to surface.
25. Lined up the well to production header: Though the velocity string – flow wing valve line up to unload
water and through the velocity string annulus – spool outlets for high rate gas production.
Execution of the above mentioned operational steps ensured that the customized velocity string suitable
for the RDG application is successfully installed in the wells. These wells have capability of flowing through
both the coiled tubing and the CT-Tubing annulus. The inner string is used to unload water and the annulus
will be used for high rate gas production.

Economics of the Project

This section will discuss the economics of the velocity string installation job. The key point that has to be
considered here is that RDG field is a tight gas system field with low IRR and hence economics if of huge
importance and well cost is always to be kept low, to ensure commercial feasibility of field development.
IADC/SPE-191006-MS 19

As mentioned previously the water loading issue in RDG wells could potentially be resolved by various
techniques such as:
1. Staged fracturing: As described before, the staged completion is a definite solution, but it will alter
frac continuity since all the fracs and wells cannot be completed in a single campaign and significant
time will be lost on standby mode when the bottom zones are cleaning up. Detailed schedules have
been worked out, but this technique was never economical. The major factor contributing to this is,
that the wells are located as cluster on few wellpads only. There will be serious logistics and HSE
concerns in case we want to increase the operational efficiency by having SIMOPS of fracturing and
flowback on the same wellpad.
2. Altering the completion design to complete the wells using frac sleeves so as to preferentially
clean-up zones: This is a more feasible alternative as compared to the stage fracturing discussed
above. However, this technique will be a significant deviation from the current simple monobore
completions and also considerably more expensive. Rig time needed for this completion will increase
leading to significant increase in well cost. In addition, fracturing efficiency will also decrease due to
the fact that sleeves will need to be operated after every fracturing operation. Well cost is expected to
increase over 30% in this new completion technique. Considering that per well cost is ~ 4 MMUSD,
this translated to approx 1 MMUSD increase per well which is a significant amount particularly for
tight systems in which economics is of paramount importance.
3. Nitrogen lifting for staged clean-up: This was discussed and ruled due to operational and economical
constraints.
The cost for the velocity string installation in the two pilot wells is less than 0.25 MMUSD per well.
Also key point to be considered here is that this 0.25 MMUSD is not an additional expense as the velocity
string would have always been installed in these wells in late life. With this present project, all that is being
done is that the project is preponed to initial well life with a modified design so that it can be used for frac
fluid unloading as well. Hence the additional cost impact due this velocity string installation is only time
value of money. For 0.25 MMUSD per well this amount is ~ 0.10 MMUSD (@7% inflation). This is a small
amount considering the huge impact this project will have on well and field lifecyle.

Summary
Salient points of the velocity string job in RDG are as below:
1. This new completion will resolve the persistent water loading and frac clean-up issues observed across
bottom Felsic zones of RDG wells.
2. The velocity string design installed in RDG is unique as it offers two flow paths: Thru the coiled tubing
for water unloading and thru the annulus for high gas rate production. Such a completion design has
possibly never been done before on a global level.
3. This completion is effectively a dual completion at much reduced cost and footprint as compared to
a rig based workover. It can be used across a variety of applications across all fields and well types.
4. This project involves a lot of design and engineering work along with customization of the existing
tools and technology. The spool – hanger design along with all the downhole and surface tools have
been used for the first time in Company.
5. First dual completion done completely rigless and without well killing. Total cost for 2 wells < 0.5
MM USD.
6. Two tested mechanical barriers available at all steps during throughout installation, production and
retrieval phases.
20 IADC/SPE-191006-MS

7. Same completion (inner velocity string) to be used in late well life when condensate dropout will be
an issue.
This design can be implemented across a wide variety of applications to address well integrity issues,
selective zonal production etc. The application of this design in Raageshwari field will ensure planned
recovery of gas from the field and will also support plateau production phase.

References
1. SPE-177264-MS,Juan Quintana, Coiled Tubing Velocity String Hang-off solves and prevents
liquid loading problems in Gas well: Case study in the Gulf of Guayaqull
2. SPE-184846 Shobhit Tiwari, Saurabh Anand, Raymond Tibbles, Rajat Goyal, Punj Sidharth,
Vishal Ranjan, Shashank Patthak, Pranay Srivastava, Hindul Bhardawaj, Yudho Augustinus,
Leste Aihebeiva.: " Cracking the Volcanic Rocks in India Substantial Benefits From Continuous
Improvements Over 11 Years and 100 Fracturing Treatments".
3. SPE 30197-PA, John Martinez,Alec Martinez, Modelling Coiled-Tubing Velocity Strings for Gas
Wells
4. SPE-55681 PA, A.S. Zheng Improved Model for Collapse Pressure of Oval Coiled Tubing,
March 1999
5. SPE-24988 K.R. Newman, Schlumberger Dowell, Collapse Pressure of Oval Coiled Tubing
6. SPE-24793 Newman, K.R., Allcorn, M.G.: "Coiled Tubing in High Pressure Wells"
7. SPE-18537 Rajat Goyal, Shobhit Tiwari, Raymond Joseph Tibbles, Saurabh Anand, Vishal
Ranjan, Punj Sidharth, Shashank Pathak, Anurag Sharma, Utkash Vijay, Manish Kumar.:
"Successful Implementation of Limited Entry Technique for Multistage Fracturing Optimization
in a Deep Tight Gas Volcanic Reservoir of Western India: Case Study"
8. SPE- 186216 Utkarsh Vijayvargia, Rajat Goyal, Punj Sidharth, Saurabh Anand, Shobhit Tiwari.:
" Comprehensive Analysis of Time Lapsed Well Productivity Index for Characterizing Well
Behavior in Tight Volcanic Gas Reservoir"
IADC/SPE-191006-MS 21

Annexure 1 (i)

Production Logging Analysis for Well RA – 1: Water loading in bottom zones

Annexure 1 (ii)

Production Logging Analysis for Well RA – 2: Water level static with increasing drawdown

Legend:
on second column from left indicates frac intervals.
on rightmost column indicates gas production (cumulative)
22 IADC/SPE-191006-MS

Annexure 1 (iii)

Production Logging Analysis for Well RA - 3: Water loading in bottom zones

Annexure 1 (iv)

Production Logging Analysis for Well RA – 4: Time lapsed logging illustrating static liquid column

Legend:
on second column from left indicates frac intervals.
on rightmost column indicates gas production (cumulative)
IADC/SPE-191006-MS 23

Annexure 1 (v)

Production Logging Analysis for Well RA – 5: Gas Production from Felsic and absence of liquid column

Legend:
on second column from left indicates frac intervals.
on rightmost column indicates gas production (cumulative)
24 IADC/SPE-191006-MS

Annexure 2

Annexure 3 (i)
IADC/SPE-191006-MS 25

Annexure 3 (ii)

Annexure 3 (iii)
26 IADC/SPE-191006-MS

Annexure 3 (iv)

Annexure 3 (v)
IADC/SPE-191006-MS 27

Annexure 3 (vi)

Annexure 3 (vii)
28 IADC/SPE-191006-MS

Annexure 3 (viii)

Annexure 3 (ix)
IADC/SPE-191006-MS 29

Annexure 3 (x)

Annexure 4

Customized CT Hanger for RDG Wells

30 IADC/SPE-191006-MS

Annexure 5 (i) Dual pump out plug operation

Annexure 5 (ii) Dual flapper check valve activation

IADC/SPE-191006-MS 31

Annexure 6: Flow Simulations

Sensitivity Plot w/ Flow through Different Production Strings

Sensitivity Plot w/ Flow through Annulus of VS and 3.5" String

32 IADC/SPE-191006-MS

Model Inputs: PVT parameters

Model Inputs: PVT parameters

IADC/SPE-191006-MS 33

Model Inputs: Production String Size and Flow Type

Model Inputs: Different FTHPs and Production Strings

34 IADC/SPE-191006-MS

System analysis: FTHP = 1000 psi

System analysis: FTHP = 2000 psi

IADC/SPE-191006-MS 35

System analysis: FTHP = 2500 psi