Improving Gas Well Drilling and Completion with High Energy Lasers Brian C. Gahan Gas Technology Institute 1
Drilling for Oil and Gas in the US Oil and Gas Wells Drilled, 1985-2000 Exploratory and Development 350 80 Total Footage Drilled (Oil, Gas, & 70 300 Dry Holes) Total Wells Drilled Per Year (000) Petroleum Total Wells Completed 60 Total Footage Drilled 250 (Millions of Feet) 50 200 40 150 30 100 20 50 10 0 0 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 2
Drilling for Oil and Gas in the US 140 7000 120 6000 Dollars per Foot 100 5000 Depth (ft) 4000 80 Average Depth per Well 60 3000 Average Cost per Foot 40 Estimated Cost Per Foot and Average 2000 Depth Per Well of All Wells (Oil, Gas and Dry) Drilled Onshore in 20 the U.S. from 1959 - 1999 1000 (DeGolyer and MacNaughton, 2000) 0 0 1959 1964 1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 Year 3
Drilling for Oil and Gas in the US ! 1990 GRI Study on Drilling Costs Major Categories % of Total Time Making Hole 48 Changing Bits 27 And Steel Casing Well & Formation Characteristics 25 Total Drilling Time 100% . 4
High-energy Laser Applications Lasers could play a significant role as a vertical boring & perforating tool in gas well drilling 5
System Vision ! Laser on surface or within drilling tubing applies infrared energy to the working face of the borehole. ! The downhole assembly includes sensors that measure standard geophysical formation information, as well as imaging of the borehole wall, all in real time. ! Excavated material is circulated to the surface as solid particles 6
System Vision ! When desired, some or all of the excavated material is melted and forced into and against the wall rock. ! The ceramic thus formed can replace the steel casing currently used to line well bores to stabilize the well and to control abnormal pressures. 7
System Vision ! When the well bore reaches its target depth, the well is completed by using the same laser emergy to perforate through the ceramic casing. ! All this is done in one pass without removing the drill string from the hole. 8
Laser Product Development LASER BASIC RESEARCH Laser FE Laser Perf Laser Drilling Assist 9
Off Ramp: Perforating Tool ! Proposal Submitted to Service Industry Partner ! Purpose – Complete or re-complete existing well using laser energy ! Requirements – Durable, reliable laser system – Energy delivery system – Purpose designed downhole assembly 10
Preliminary Feasibility Study ! Laser Drilling Experiments – 11/97 – Basic Research – 2 years ! Three High-Powered Military Lasers – Chemical Oxygen Iodine Laser (COIL) – Mid Infra-Red Advanced Chemical Laser (MIRACL) – CO 2 Laser ! Various Rock Types Studied – Sandstone, Limestone, Shale – Granite, Concrete, Salt 11
MIRACL – Simulated Perf Shot A two-inch laser beam is sent to the side of a sandstone sample to simulate a horizontal drilling application . 12
MIRACL – Simulated Borehole Shot After a four-second exposure to the beam, a hole is blasted through the sandstone sample, removing six pounds of material. 13
GRI-Funded Study Conclusions ! Previous Literature Overestimated SE ! Existing Lasers Able to Penetrate All Rock ! Laser/Rock Interactions Are a Function of Rock and Laser (Spall, Melt or Vaporize) ! Secondary Effects Reduce Destruction ! Melt Sheaths Similar to Ceramic Study Conclusions Indicate Additional Research is Warranted 14
Laser Drilling Team – Phase I Gas Technology Institute DOE NETL Argonne National Laboratory Colorado School of Mines Parker Geoscience Consulting Halliburton Energy Services PDVSA-Intevep, S.A 15
Drilling With The Power Of Light ! DOE Cooperative Agreement DE-FC26-00NT40917 – Original Proposed Tasks and Timeline TABLE 3: WORK TASK TIMELINES 2000 2001 2002 2003 Quarter 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Quarter 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Task 1. Project Structure and Management Task 2. Fundamental Research 2.1 Laser cutting energy assessment series 2.2 Variable Pulse Laser Effects 2.3 Drilling Under Insitu Conditions 2.4 Rock-Melt Lining Stability 2.5 Gas Storage Stimulation 2.6 Laser Induced Rock Fracturing Model 2.7 Laser Drilling Engineering Issue Identification Task 3. System Design Integration 3.1 Solids Control 3.2 Pressure Control 3.3 Bottom-hole Assembly 3.4 High Energy Transmission 3.5 Completion and Stimulation Techniques for Gas Well Drilling 3.6 Completion and Stimulation Techniques for Gas Storage Wells Task 4. Data Synthesis and Interpretation Task 5. Integration and Reporting Task 6. Milestones Task 7.Technology Transfer 16
First Phase (FY-01) Objectives ! Accepted Phase 1 Task List 1. Laser cutting energy assessment 2. Variable pulse laser effects (Nd:YAG) 3. Lasing through liquids TABLE 3: WORK TASK TIMELINES 2000 2001 Quarter 4 1 2 3 Year 1 Quarter 1 2 3 4 1.0 Project Structure and Management 1.1 Laser cutting energy assessment series 1.2 Variable Pulse Laser Effects 1.3 Conduct Lasing Through Liquids 1.4 Topical Report 17
Phase I Laser: 1.6 kW Nd:YAG Neodymium Yttrium Aluminum Garnet (Nd:YAG) Focusing Optics Coaxial Gas Purge Laser Beam 1.27 cm Rock 7.6 cm 18
Conclusions: GTI/DOE Phase I ! SE for Shale 10x Less Than SS or LS ! Pulsed Lasers Cut Faster & With Less Energy Than Continuous Wave Lasers. ! Fluid Saturated Rocks Cut Faster Than Dry Rocks. ! Possible Mechanisms Include: ! More Rapid Heat Transfer Away From the Cutting Face Suppressing Melting ! Steam Expansion of Water ! Contributing to Spallation 19
Conclusions: GTI/DOE Phase I ! Optimal Laser Parameters Observed to Minimize SE for Each Rock Type ! Shorter Total Duration Pulses Reduce Secondary Effects from Heat Accumulation ! Rethink Laser Application Theory – Rate of Application: Blasting vs Chipping ! Unlimited Downhole Applications Possible due to Precision and Control (i.e., direction, power, etc.) 20
DOE-GTI/NGOTP-ANL Phase 2 In Progress ! Continuation of SE Investigations – Effects at In-Situ Conditions – Effects of Multiple Bursts and Relaxation Time – Observations at Melt/Vapor Boundary 21
Supporting Slides Detailing Phase I Work 22
Laser Cutting Energy Assessment Measure specific energy (SE) ! – Limitation of variables • SS, shale and LS samples • Minimize secondary effects – Identify laser-rock interaction mechanisms (zones) • Spall, melt, vaporize 23
Just Enough Power ! Conducted Linear Tests – Constant Velocity Beam Application (dx) – Constant Velocity Focal Change (dz) ! Five Zones Defined in Linear Tests ! Identified Zones Judged Desirable for Rapid Material Removal – Boundary Parameters Determined for Spall into Melt Conditions 24
Laser/Rock Interaction Zones ! Zone Called Thermal Spallation Judged Desirable for Rapid Material Removal ! Optimal Laser Parameters Were Determined to Minimize: – Melting – Specific Energy (SE) Values – Other Energy Absorbing Secondary Effects, and – Maximize Rock Removal ! Short Beam Pulses Provided “Chipping” Mechanism Comparable to Conventional Mechanical Methods 25
Zonal Differences ! SE differs greatly between zones ! Shale shows clear SE change between melt/no melt zones ! Much analysis remains to understand sensitivities of different variables 26
SE vs Measured Average Power (kW) 6 SH11A Specific Energy (kJ/cc) 5 Spallation Zone 3 - Significant Melt 4 SH10 3 SH11B2 SH18A SH13A 2 SH11B1 R 2 = 0.9095 SH12B2 SH15A2 SH2 SH6 SH12B1 SH15A1 1 Zone 2 - No Melt SH8 Minimum SE 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 Measured Average Power (kW) 27
Lithology Differences ! Differences between lithologies more pronounced when secondary effects minimized ! Shale has lowest SE by an order of magnitude. ! Sandstone and limestone remain similar, as in CW tests 28
All ND:YAG Tests 10000 Specific Energy kJ/cc Sandstone Limestone Shale 1000 100 10 1 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Average Power W 29
SE Values: Wet vs. Dry Samples 35 30 Specific Energy (kJ/cc) 25 Dry 20 15 10 Wet 5 0 0 0.5 1 Power (kW) Dry rock samples Dry rock samples Water-saturated samples Atmospheric Conditions . 30
Recommend
More recommend
