Improving Gas Well Drilling and Completion With High Energy Lasers

8/2/2019 Improving Gas Well Drilling and Completion With High Energy Lasers

1/30

1

Improving Gas Well Drilling and

Completion with High Energy Lasers

Brian C. Gahan

Gas Technology Institute


2/30

2

Drilling for Oil and Gas in the US

Oil and Gas Wells Drilled, 1985-2000Exploratory and Development

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00

TotalFoo

tageDrilled

(MillionsofFeet)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Total

WellsDrilled

Per

Year(000)

Total Footage Drilled (Oil, Gas, &

Dry Holes)Petroleum Total Wells Completed


3/30

3

Drilling for Oil and Gas in the US7000

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1959 1964 1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994

Dollars

perFoot

Average Cost per Foot

Average Depth per Well

Estimated Cost Per Foot and AverageDepth Per Well of All Wells

(Oil, Gas and Dry) Drilled Onshore in

the U.S. from 1959 - 1999

(DeGolyer and MacNaughton, 2000)

6000

5000

3000

4000

Depth

(ft)

2000

1000

0

Year


4/304

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 & FormationCharacteristics 25

Total Drilling Time 100% .


5/305

High-energy Laser Applications

Lasers could playa significant role

as a vertical

boring &perforating tool in

gas well drilling


6/30

6

System Vision

! Laser on surface or within drillingtubing applies infrared energy to theworking face of the borehole.

! The downhole assembly includes

sensors that measure standardgeophysical formation information, aswell as imaging of the borehole wall, all

in real time.! Excavated material is circulated to the

surface as solid particles


7/30

7

System Vision

! When desired, some or all of the

excavated material is melted and forcedinto and against the wall rock.

! The ceramic thus formed can replacethe steel casing currently used to linewell bores to stabilize the well and to

control abnormal pressures.


8/30

8

System Vision

! When the well bore reaches its target

depth, the well is completed by using thesame laser emergy to perforate throughthe ceramic casing.

! All this is done in one pass withoutremoving the drill string from the hole.


9/30

9

Laser Product Development

LASER BASIC

RESEARCH

Laser FE

Laser Drilling

Assist

Laser Perf


10/30

10

Off Ramp: Perforating Tool

! Proposal Submitted to

Service Industry Partner! Purpose

Complete or re-completeexisting well using laser

energy! Requirements

Durable, reliable lasersystem

Energy delivery system

Purpose designeddownhole assembly


11/30

11

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 ChemicalLaser (MIRACL)

CO2 Laser

! Various Rock Types Studied Sandstone, Limestone, Shale

Granite, Concrete, Salt


12/30

12

MIRACL Simulated Perf Shot

A two-inch laser beam is sent to the side of a sandstone

sample to simulate a horizontal drilling application.


13/30

13

MIRACL Simulated Borehole Shot

After a four-second exposure tothe beam, a hole is blasted

through the sandstone sample,

removing six pounds of

material.


14/30

14

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 AdditionalResearch is Warranted


15/30

15

Laser Drilling Team Phase I

Gas Technology Institute

DOE NETL

Argonne National Laboratory

Colorado School of MinesParker Geoscience Consulting

Halliburton Energy Services

PDVSA-Intevep, S.A


16/30

16

Drilling With The Power Of Light! DOE Cooperative Agreement DE-FC26-00NT40917

Original Proposed Tasks and Timeline

Quarter 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2

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 Dril ling 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 Integration3.1 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. Mile stones

Task 7.Technology Transfer

Year 3Year 2Year 1

TABLE 3: WORK TASK TIMELINES2001 2002 20032000


17/30

17

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

Quarter 4 1 2 3

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

Year 1

20012000

TABLE 3: WORK TASK TIMELINES


18/30

18

Phase I Laser: 1.6 kW Nd:YAG

Laser Beam

Rock

Neodymium Yttrium Aluminum Garnet (Nd:YAG)

Coaxial

Gas Purge

Focusing

Optics

1.27 cm

7.6 cm


19/30

19

Conclusions: GTI/DOE Phase I

! SE for Shale 10x Less Than SS or LS

! Pulsed Lasers Cut Faster & With LessEnergy Than Continuous Wave Lasers.

! Fluid Saturated Rocks Cut Faster Than DryRocks.

! Possible Mechanisms Include:

! More Rapid Heat Transfer Away Fromthe Cutting Face Suppressing Melting

! Steam Expansion of Water

! Contributing to Spallation


20/30

20

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 Possibledue to Precision and Control (i.e.,direction, power, etc.)


21/30

21

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


22/30

22

Supporting Slides Detailing Phase I Work


23/30

23

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


24/30

24

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 intoMelt Conditions


25/30

25

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 ChippingMechanism Comparable to ConventionalMechanical Methods


26/30

26

Zonal Differences

! SE differs greatly between zones

! Shale shows clear SE change betweenmelt/no melt zones

!

Much analysis remains to understandsensitivities of different variables


27/30

27

SE vs Measured Average Power (kW)

SH11A

SH10

SH11B2

SH18A

SH12B2

SH8

SH11B1

SH13A

SH15A1

SH15A2SH12B1

SH2 SH6

R2 = 0.9095

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

Measured Average Power (kW)

Specific

Energy(k

J/cc)

Zone 3 - Significant Melt

Zone 2 - No Melt

Minimum SE

Spallation


28/30

28

Lithology Differences

! Differences between lithologies more

pronounced when secondary effectsminimized

! Shale has lowest SE by an order ofmagnitude.

! Sandstone and limestone remain similar,

as in CW tests


29/30

29

All ND:YAG Tests

0

1

10

100

1000

10000

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Average Power W

S

pecificE

nergyk

J/cc

Sandstone Limestone Shale


30/30

30

SE Values: Wet vs. Dry Samples

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 0.5 1

Power (kW)

Specific

Energy

(kJ/cc

Dry rock samples Dry rock samples Water-saturated samples

Dry

Wet

Atmospheric Conditions.

Documents

Improving Gas Well Drilling and Completion With High Energy Lasers