SPE 154447

Using Coiled Tubing as Sucker Rods for SRP

Fernando S. Flores-Avila, SPE, PEMEX E&P; Juan M. Riaño; and Marcos Javier-Martinez, PEMEX E&P; Tony
Hammond, SPE, and Joel Cantu, SPE, IPS Servicios Petrotec; Jocabeth Ramos, IPS Servicios Petrotec

Copyright 2012, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing & Well Intervention Conference & Exhibition held in The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 27–28 March 2012.

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

Sucker rod Pumping (SRP) has been among the most efficient artificial lift systems. This method has proven to be one of the
most popular ones while having some modifications in the prime mover systems, using hydraulic, pneumatic or mechanical
devices. However, one of the most frequently encountered problems with this system is that while the well is being produced,
sand is dragged from the formation to the well. Whether it comes from the fracture (propant) or the formation itself, this
interferes with the pumping system and the fluid flow to the surface.
In SRP, fluid flow velocity is not enough to maintain sand suspended so that it could be brought up to the surface, ending up
precipitated and being deposited on top of the pump causing a reduction in efficiency and premature wear of the pump
components, if not stocking the pump at all.
Due to this effect, the well must be scheduled for work over in order to remove the sand. This implies to move and de-move
a work over rig which can take several days with the associated cost and deferred production.
Using Coiled Tubing instead of a sucker rod string, maintenance can be achieved to the well through pumping and circulating
fluids without having to remove the string and bottom hole pump, taking just about a couple of hours to perform the job.
Production can be restored in few hours, reducing down time, maximizing well production. It also can be used in a
preventive mode by pumping chemicals that will help fluid flow by preventing scale build up and viscosity reduction in the
case of heavy and viscous crude oils.
Coiled tubing string is designed to fit specific needs such as depth, pressure, and loads expected during the operation. It may
vary in diameter, wall thickness, and stiffness.
This paper describes the first time application in México for this technology which offers a great potential in mature fields. It
also describes coiled tubing design criteria as well as string evaluation after the trial test performed.

Introduction

The use of coiled tubing as a sucker rod string was first applied in Argentina, followed by the US and Canada (Leniek(1997),
Solanet(1999), Ayestaran (!999), Lea (2000), Falk (2002))
. The benefits claimed by those applications were significant reduction in size of
completion needed for a given productive flow rate, also reduction of the tubular components needed for the completion as
the coiled tubing string doubles as both the rod string and the production tubing. Some other advantages currently being
evaluated in this specific application is the capability of pumping chemicals that will help fluid flow by preventing scale
build up and viscosity reduction in the case of heavy and viscous crude oils. Due to the fact that the coiled tubing is not a
solid bar material as a sucker rod, the design criteria is different from the method currently used for sucker rods, and should
be treated as a completion tubing string subjected to a cyclical load. Effects that should be taken in account for the design are
temperature, piston, ballooning and buckling (mechanical and hydraulic). Once all these effects have been evaluated under
the operating conditions, they should be plot and checked against the ellipse of plasticity (Von Mises). As no analytical data
exist to confirm the fatigue model, Falk(Falk(2002)) suggests the API Modified Goodman Stress Diagram(API RP11BR) to validate
that the coiled tubing would not be over loaded. He stated that although the diagram is commonly used for steel sucker rods,
the coiled tubing material is comparable to the steel used in the rods. In this work it is suggested that a modification should be
made to the maximum and minimum stresses to be considered when plotting them into the Modified Goodman Diagram,
taking into account the triaxial nature of stresses in a tubular material. In such condition, not only an axial component should
be considered, but also radial and tangential ones.
2 SPE 154447

Coiled Tubing Design Considerations for SRP.

As mentioned before, when using coiled tubing as a sucker rod for SRP, it is subjected to different effects that makes it
necessary to design it under the same criteria as a completion tubing string subjected to cyclical load, therefore the following
effects are considered(Flores-Avila 2003):

Temperature effect.

While being run into the well, the coiled tubing takes on the temperature distribution of the earth, and this temperature varies
as a function of depth. Since the running procedure is relatively slow, the coiled tubing is at geothermal equilibrium before
any subsequent operation like setting the pump and initiating the pumping operations; therefore the geothermal distribution is
taken as the initial condition. Linear dimensional change due to temperature change can be expressed as:

 x  dxT

Where:

dx = length of an element.

T = temperature change experienced by the element dx.

 = coefficient of linear expansion (6.9 x 10-6 1/°F for steel).

  elongation
x  Change in length of an element dx, due to a temperature change.
  contraction

Hence the total length change experienced by the coiled tubing can be expressed as:

L
LT    x   f T dx
L

0
0

Where:

LT  Overall length change of the coiled tubing

f T   Function describing temperature difference from initial to final conditions, as a function of depth in °F

Assuming a linear distribution of temperatures, both at initial and final conditions, the result will be the same as considering
the difference of the average temperatures, that is

LT  LTAverage
If the coiled tubing is restrained (that is, cannot change length) then tension change will occur. The magnitude of this change
is given by Hooke´s Law

LT EAs
FT 
L
Where:
E = Young´s modulus 30X106 for steel
As = Cross-sectional area of the coiled tubing
L = Total coiled tubing length
SPE 154447 3

Piston effect.

The pump at the end of the coiled tubing placed at the bottom of the well, constitute a piston and a cylinder, and the hydraulic
forces acting on this piston are referred to as the piston effect.

The forces acting at the pump as piston can be calculated by the expression:

Fp  pi Ap  Ai   p0 Ap  A0 

Where:

∆Fp = Change in force acting at the bottom of the coiled tubing at the pump due to the piston effect.
pi  Change in pressure inside the coiled tubing  pCoiled tbg final  pCoiled tbginitial
p0  Change in pressure between the coiled tubing and tubing string  p Annularfinal  p Annularinitial
Ap = Area due to the pump cylinder
Ai = Area due to the Coiled tubing ID
Ao = Area due to the Coiled Tubing OD

Consequently, an increase or decrease in the inside or outside pressures of the coiled tubing tends to move the string due to
these piston effects acting on the pump. When motion occurs, the tubing undergoes a change of length given by Hooke´s
Law with the force being the piston effect given above. Therefore, length changes are given by

LP  
L
EAs

pi Ap  Ai   p0 Ap  A0  

Note that a positive piston effect (upward force), yield a negative length change, that means a shortening of the coiled tubing,
which is the reason for the negative sign introduced in the length change equation.

Ballooning effect.

Other phenomena associated with the coiled tubing in SRP operations is the ballooning effect. This is the response of the
coiled tubing to changes in pressure inside or outside it. Intuitively we feel that an increase in the pressure inside the coiled
tubing tends to shorten it, whereas an increase in outside pressure trends to lengthen the coiled tubing. However, if the coiled
tubing is constrained, these length changes cannot occur, and forces are generated.

Starting with Hooke´s Law involving stresses in three dimensions, applied to tubular, that is, in cylindrical coordinates,

z 1
  z    r    
z E
Where σ is the stress in either of the three dimensions, and µ is Poisson´s ratio (0.3 for steel). Stresses in the radial and
tangential directions due to applied pressures are given by the Lame equations,

r 
  
 pi ri 2 r02  r 2  p 0 r02 r 2  ri 2 
r 2 (r02  ri 2 )

And

 
  
pi ri 2 r02  r 2  p 0 r02 r 2  ri 2 
r 2 (r02  ri 2 )
4 SPE 154447

Where Po and Pi are the outside and inside pressures acting on the tubing, ro and ri are the outside and the inside radii of the
coiled tubing, and r is the variable indicating position between the radii (Figure 2). These equations utilize tension or tensile
stress as negative and compression or compressive stress as positive.

These variables are related to the following figures:

(Flores-Avila 2003)
Figure 1 Stress components in a differential element of the coiled tubing

pi ri p0
r

r0

(Flores-Avila 2003)
Figure 2 Inside and outside pressures of the coiled tubing

To solve the equation to find either the change in length or change in force, first the case where the coiled tubing is
unrestricted is considered. This means that the end of the coiled tubing is allowed to move in response to radial and
tangential stress, or Δσz= 0 . Using the three equations above:

z 2  pi  p0 R 2 
  
z E  R2 1 

Absolute length changes are not really of interest, but rather length change relative to the initial condition when the coiled
tubing was deployed at the time of setting the pump down hole. So we are seeking the difference in two strain conditions
(the initial strain at the time of running the coiled tubing and the final condition which can be the pumping scenario) and
since this equation is a linear function, we can replace the pressures above with the change in pressure to obtain the
ballooning effect. Always keep in mind that the initial condition is when running the coiled tubing and setting the pump.
Consequently, the ballooning effect equation would be:

z 2   pi  p 0 R 2 
  
z E  R2 1 
SPE 154447 5

The above equation describes the change in length of an elemental length of coiled tubing. Integrating this equation over the
entire length of the coiled tubing and considering pressure distributions along the well as linear functions of depth, the
following expression is obtained:

L z 2 L  pi  p 0 R 2 

0 z

E 0  R 2  1 
 
Finally

2 L  pi  p 0 R 2 
LB    
E  R2 1 

Where:

pia  pCoiledtbg final  pCoiledtbginitial avg

avg

p0a  ptubing final  ptubinginitial avg

avg

Which these conditions denotes the average change in pressure. If the coiled tubing is restrained and for some reason not
allowed to change length (ΔZ =0 ) then a tensile or compressive axial stress will result, and the equivalent force for this
condition will be:

F  2 pi Ai  p0 A0 

Consequently, an increase in inside pressure or a decrease in outside pressure trends to shorten the coiled tubing, or cause a
tensile stress if the coiled tubing is constrained. A decrease in inside pressure or an increase in outside pressure tends to
lengthen the coiled tubing, or cause a compressive stress if the tubing is constrained.

Buckling effect.

The buckling effect is the last one to be considered herein and it can be generated by two causes: mechanical and hydraulic.

Mechanical buckling.

First, mechanical buckling is considered due to slacking off weight with the coiled tubing to the bottom hole pump. In the
case of a classical vertical column undergoing bending, the initiation of buckling is catastrophic since the column tends to
buckle more, once buckling begins because less force is required to continue the buckling relative to initiation of buckling.
In the particular case of the deployment of the coiled tubing inside a tubing string, a different situation arises. Since the
coiled tubing is confined inside the tubing string, the buckling phenomena do not continue to failure. Instead the tubular takes
on the shape of a spiral whose pitch varies.

In the case of slacking off weight with the coiled tubing onto the pump, two length changes occur. One is the Hooke´s law
contraction of the coiled tubing, given by

FL
LHL  
EAs
And a second length change due to the mechanical buckling is.

r2F 2
LMB  
96EIw
Where:
6 SPE 154447

IDtbg  ODCoiled tbg

r , radial clearance
2

F  Slack off force


I
64
OD 4
CoiledTubing  IDTubing
4
 , Moment of inertial of the cross sectional area of the coiled tubing
w  Effective weight of the coiled tubing in fluid and is given by:

w  ws  wi  w0

Where:

Wn lbs / pie  lb 
ws    pg  Weight of coiled tubing
12 12  

i  lb 
wi  Ai ,  i   ppg  ;   Weight of fluid inside the coiled tubing
231  pg 

0  lb 
w0  A0 ,  0   ppg  ;   Weight of fluid outside the coiled tubing
231  pg 

Ai  0.7854  IDCoiledT Tubing 

2

A0  0.7854  ODCoiled Tubing 

2

2

As  0.7854 ODCoiled Tubing  IDCoiled Tubing
2

Finally the total change in length will be:

LMBuckling Total  LHL  LMB

The neutral point of buckling can be calculated by the length of coiled tubing that will be buckled by the equation:

F
d
12w
Hydraulic buckling.

In addition to mechanical buckling, the coiled tubing subjected to differential pressures may also buckle due to hydraulic
forces generated. To explain this tendency to buckle, the following figure will graphically show the applied forces:
SPE 154447 7

Coiled Tubing

L

(Flores-Avila 2003)
Figure 3 Hydraulic buckling in coiled tubing

Shown is an elemental length of the coiled tubing, L, which is slightly bent. Hydraulic forces generated by the pressure
both inside and outside the coiled tubing are shown as horizontal vectors. If the inside pressure is greater than the outside
pressure, then the inside forces are greater than the outside forces. Furthermore, the inside force towards the right is slightly
greater than the inside force toward the left because of the bend, for example, the bend causes the area that the pressure is
acting across to be larger on the right compared to the left side of the coiled tubing. Thus the coiled tubing will tend to bend
more toward the right. This phenomenon is what it is called hydraulic buckling.

On the other hand, greater pressure on the outside of the coiled tubing relative to the inside pressure tends to prevents
buckling. This means that a large compressive force is required to cause buckling if the outside pressure is greater than the
inside pressure relative to the situation where both pressures are equal. The magnitude of the required force to cause
buckling for a given differential pressure will be addressed as a fictitious force. In mechanical buckling, a compressive force
applied to the coiled tubing tends to buckle it. To describe buckling due to pressure, the concept of fictitious force, Ff is
introduced. This Ff is the compressive force that would have to be applied to the bottom of the coiled tubing to cause the
equivalent buckling of the differential pressure. This mean that the pressure forces distributed along the entire coiled tubing
will be replaced by a fictitious force applied to the bottom of the coiled tubing which causes the same result. This force is
given by:

F f  AP p i  p 0 

Finally the hydraulic buckling will be given by the following expression:

2
r 2 Ff
LHyd  Buckling  
96EIw
With the variables already defined.

The ellipse of plasticity.

Once all the effects mentioned above have been evaluated under the operating conditions, thy should be plotted and checked
against the ellipse of plasticity (Von Mises) to make sure that they comply with the limits established accordingly to the kind
of material. Examination of the ellipse of plasticity shows that axial tension has a detrimental effect on collapse-pressure
rating and a beneficial effect on burst-pressure rating. In contrast, axial compression has a detrimental effect on burst-
pressure rating and a beneficial effect on collapse-pressure rating.
8 SPE 154447

(Bourgoyne 1986)
Figure 4 Ellipse of plasticity

API Modified Goodman Diagram.

As no analytical data exist to confirm the fatigue model, Falk(4) suggested the API Modified Goodman Stress Diagram
(Figure 5) to validate that the coiled tubing would not be over loaded. He stated that although the diagram is commonly used
for steel sucker rods, the coiled tubing material is comparable to the steel used in the rods. In this work it is suggested that a
modification should be made to the maximum and minimum stresses to be considered when plotting them into the Modified
Goodman Diagram, taking into account the triaxial nature of stresses in a tubular material. In such condition, not only an
axial component should be considered, but also radial and tangential ones. Also as stated by Parameswaran(Parameswaran 2001), the
API Modified Goodman Diagram is conservative. The safety factor applied for pull-pull test seems to be higher than what is
required. This result in the re-definition of entire API Modified Goodman Diagram as follow:

 The Y-intercept shall be T/2.5 as against T/4 specified by the API committee.
 As a result, the slope of the allowable stress line changes to 0.3 from 0.5625.
 The revised definition of the Modified Goodman Diagram becomes:

Sa = (T/2.5 + M Smin) SF

Where:
Sa = Allowable stress (psi)
T = Minimum tensile strength (psi)
M = Slope of the allowable stress line =0.3
Smin = Minimum stress (psi)
SF = Safety factor (dimensionless)

According to the experimental test performed, the behavior of the specimens suggested that the material will be able to
withstand even higher ranges of stress. Figure 6 show the new proposed Modified Goodman Diagram as per Parameswaran.
SPE 154447 9

Figure 5 API Modified Goodman Diagram

Figure 6 Modified Goodman Diagram as per Parameswaran

Whenever coiled tubing is bent, bending stresses are induced in its fibers. Stress becomes more tensile at the outer pipe
fibers (outer part of bend) and becomes more compressive at the inner pipe fibers (inner part of bend). In addition, the
longitudinal stresses due to its own weight plus the weight of the produced fluid in the case of the up stroke, and the
additional axial stresses and radial stresses due to pressure. Consequently, if stresses exceed the strength of the material, and
the bending takes the material beyond the elastic region, the coiled tubing may be permanently deformed. This deformation
is referred to as permanent corkscrewing.

Triaxial stress addition yields the following equations describing the stresses at the inside and outside fibers of the coiled
tubing. Both inequalities must be satisfied to ensure that permanent corkscrewing does not take place after the pressure and
temperature change occur during the pumping operations. Applying the calculated values to the Modified Goodman
Diagram as per Parameswaran, corroborates that the coiled tubing is operating under allowable working condition.

2 2
 p  p   p  R p0 
2
S 0  3 i 2 0    i 2   a   b   Sa
 R 1   R 1 
10 SPE 154447

 R 2  pi  p 0    pi  R 2 p 0
2 2
 
S i  3     a  b   Sa
 R 1   R 1
2 2
R

In which:

Fa
a 
As

ODCoiled Tubing  r
b  Ff
4I

Fa   AP  Ai  pi   AP  A0  p0

A0
R2 
Ai
In the inequalities above, the sign of σb and σb/R is to be chosen to give the greatest values for So and Si. However, if the
tubing is not buckled after pressures and temperature changes occur, then σb =0.

Case History

This technology was applied for the first time in Mexico in four wells in the northern region of Pemex in two different assets.
As the surface hydraulic power pack unit is capable to feed two wells, the selection criteria for the wells, besides producing
heavy and viscous oil, was to locate two wells in the same cluster to fulfill this requirement. Wells Coapechaca 75 and 95
were selected then for the test at the AIATG asset, which belongs to the Chicontepec project. In the present paper it is
addressed only the analysis to the Coapechaca 75 well.

Coapechaca 75 well is located at the east side of the Coapechaca 71 cluster. Total depth of the well is 1759 m with
perforations from 1690 to 1708 m. It was completed with a 5 ½” casing and a 2 7/8” tubing producing high viscosity oil of
5848 cp @ 25 °C. The well was shut down due to low bottom hole pressure and heavy and viscous oil.
SPE 154447 11

Figure 7 Coapechaca 75 before installation of the Coiled Tubing with SRP

Figure 8 Coapechaca 75 and 95 surface equipment and viscous oil.

Coiled Tubing design for SRP

Following the procedure proposed in this paper, calculations were performed to assure that the coiled tubing used in this
application would fulfill the requirements for the pumping operations in this well. In tables 1 and 2 there is a summary for
the input data as well as the calculation performed for the up stoke condition where the peak polish rod load (PPRL) is
reached (table 1), as well as the down stoke condition where the minimum polish rod load is registered (table 2). In these
tables it can be observed that the coiled tubing selected for this application comply with the requirements needed. It can also
be observed in figure 9 that operating conditions of the coiled tubing lied inside of the ellipse of plasticity, indicating that the
coiled tubing is in a safe operating range. Also, figure 10 shows that stresses generated during the pumping action in the up
stroke and down stroke, are located in the allowable stress range in the Modified Goodman Diagram as per Parameswaran.
12 SPE 154447

Input Data Output Data Output Data

Depth 5,379 ft A re a s TEM P ERA TURE

C.T. (O.D.) 1.500 in Ap 1.767 in2 DELTA (L) 0.167 ft

C.T. (I.D.) 1.250 in A1 1.227 in2 DELTA (F) -503 LB S

Nominal Weight C.T. 1.836 lb/ft Ao 1.767 in2
Grade C.T. 80,000 psi As 0.540 in2 B A LLONING

Tbg. (OD) 2.875 in BHP DELTA (L) 0.106 ft

Tbg. (ID) 2.441 in P 1(i) 1,088 psi DELTA (F) 318 LB S

Pump (OD) 1.875 in P 1(f) 1,088 psi
Pump (ID) 1.500 in P 1 0 psi P ISTON

C.T density @ running in 3.890 ppg P o (i) 2,375 psi DELTA (L) 0.000 ft

C.T. Pressure @ running in 0 psi Po (f) 2,675 psi DELTA (Fp) 0 LB S

CT

C.T. density @ op. Conditions 3.890 ppg P 0 300 psi

C.T. Pressure @ op. Conditions 0 psi A v e ra ge C o ndit io ns B UCKLING M ECA NICO

Tbg density @ running 8.490 ppg T1(avg) 120 O

F  (L)Elastic -3.754 ft

Tbg pressure @ running 0.000 psi T2 (avg) 125 O

F  (L)B uckling -0.702 ft
Tbg

Tbg density @ op. Conditions 8.490 ppg  T (avg) 5 O

F  (L)B uckling To t -4.456 ft

Tbg. Presure @ op. Conditions 300 psi P 1 (i)(av) 544

psi
Surface Temp. 86 O
F P 1 (f)(av) 544 psi B UCKLING HIDRA ULICO

Surface Temp. @ op. Cond. 95 O

F  P1(avg) 0 psi DELTA (L) -0.002 ft

BHT @ running in 154 O

F P o (i)(av) 1,187 psi F(FICTICIA) -530 LB S
BHT @ op. Conditions 154 O
F P o (f)(av) 1,487 psi
PPRL 11,304 Lbs  P o (avg) 300 psi
T o tal Effects (L)(ft) (F)(LB S) (Tens-Comp)
TEM P ERA TURA 0.167 -503 Compression
PISTON 0.000 0 Tension
B A LLONING 0.106 318 Compression
B UCKLING (H) -0.002 -530 Compression
To tal Effects 0.271
Min. Load Free to move
So 8,605 psi There isn't permanet deformation
Si 10,701 psi There isn't permanet deformation
Max. Load
So 33,495 psi There isn't permanet deformation
Si 31,583 psi There isn't permanet deformation

Table 1 Summary of results for the up stroke condition

SPE 154447 13

Input Data Output Data Output Data

Depth 5,379 ft A re a s TEM P ERA TURE

C.T. (O.D.) 1.500 in Ap 1.767 in2 DELTA (L) 0.167 ft

C.T. (I.D.) 1.250 in A1 1.227 in2 DELTA (F) -503 LB S

Nominal Weight C.T. 1.836 lb/ft Ao 1.767 in2
Grade C.T. 80,000 psi As 0.540 in2 B A LLONING

Tbg. (OD) 2.875 in BHP DELTA (L) 0.005 ft

Tbg. (ID) 2.441 in P 1(i) 1,088 psi DELTA (F) 16 LB S

Pump (OD) 1.875 in P 1(f) 1,088 psi
Pump (ID) 1.500 in P 1 0 psi P ISTON

C.T density @ running in 3.890 ppg P o (i) 2,375 psi DELTA (L) 0.000 ft

C.T. Pressure @ running in 0 psi P o (f) 2,304 psi DELTA (Fp) 0 LB S

CT

C.T. density @ op. Conditions 3.890 ppg P 0 -71 psi

C.T. Pressure @ op. Conditions 0 psi A v e ra ge C o ndit io ns M ECH. B UCKLING

Tbg density @ running 8.490 ppg T1(avg) 120 O

F  (L)Elastic -2.794 ft

Tbg pressure @ running 0.000 psi T2 (avg) 125 O

F  (L)B uckling -0.389 ft
Tbg

Tbg density @ op. Conditions 7.880 ppg  T (avg) 5 O

F  (L)B uckling To t -3.183 ft

Tbg. Presure @ op. Conditions 100 psi P 1 (i)(av) 544 psi

Surface Temp. @ running 86 O
F P 1 (f)(av) 544 psi HYD. B UCKLING

Surface Temp. @ op. Cond. 95 O

F  P 1(avg) 0 psi DELTA (L) 0.000 ft

BHT @ running in 154 O

F P o (i)(av) 1,187 psi F(Fictitious) 125 LB S
BHT @ op. Conditions 154 O
F P o (f)(av) 1,202 psi
MPRL 8,414 Lbs  P o (avg) 15 psi
T o tal Effects (L)(ftS) (F)(LB S) (Tens-Comp)
TEM P ERA TURA 0.167 -503 Compression
P ISTON 0.000 0 Tension
B A LLONING 0.005 16 Compression
B UCKLING (H) 0.000 125 Compression
To tal Effects 0.172
Min. Load Free to move
So 6,336 psi No permanet deformation
Si 8,032 psi No permanet deformation
Max. Load
So 24,986 psi No permanet deformation
Si 23,519 psi No permanet deformation

Table 2 Summary of results for the down stroke condition

14 SPE 154447

Figure 9 Ellipse of plasticity for well Coapechaca 75

Figure 10 Modified Goodman Diagram as per Parameswaran for Coapechaca 75

Conclusions

 Using coiled tubing as sucker rods for SRP has proven to be of great benefit for heavy and viscous crude oil.
 Coiled tubing design criteria as completion tubing string subjected to cyclical load has proven to be the right choice
to assure correct and safe performance of the coiled tubing string in SRP applications.
 Effects to be considered in the analysis are temperature, piston, ballooning and buckling (mechanical and hydraulic).
 The ellipse of plasticity well describes the safe range of operation of the coiled tubing for SRP applications.
 Triaxial nature of stresses in the coiled tubing should be considered in the Modified Goodman Diagram as per
Parameswaran which is suitable for coiled tubing SRP applications.
SPE 154447 15

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge and thank the following companies for their support on this project and their
permission to publish this paper:

 Pemex Exploración y Producción

 IPS Servicios Petrotec

References:

API Publication RP 11BR.

Ayestaran, L., Yang, S., Leniek, H. 1999. Coiled Tubing Replaces Sucker Rod in Beam Pumping Test. O&G Journal.
November Leniek, H. 1997. Tuberia Flexible, Presente y Futuro. Petroleo Internacional. October.

Bourgoyne, A., Millheim, K., Chenevert, M., Young, F. 1991. Applied Drilling Engineering, second edition, 502.
Richardson, Texas: Society of Petroleum Engineers.

Falk, K., Rowland, S., Stewart, J., Brikelbach, L., Leniek, H. 2002. Artificial Lift Solutions Using Coiled Tubing. Paper SPE
74832 presented at the SPE / ICoTA Coiled Tubing Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, 9-10 April.

Flores-Avila, F. et al. 2003. Apuntes de Terminación de Pozos. DEPFI – UNAM. México D.F.

Lea, J., Winkler, H., Nickles, H. Snyder, R. 2000. Artificial Lift with CT. World Oil. March.

Parameswaran, N. 2001. Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the API-Modified Goodman Diagram in Sucker Rod Fatigue
Analysis. M.S. Thesis, Texas Tech University. August.

Solanet, F., Paz, L., Leniek, H. 1999. Coiled Tubing Used as Continuous Sucker Rod System in Slim Holes – Successful
Experience. Paper SPE 565671 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, 3-6
October.