Improving Gas Well Drilling and Completion with High Energy Lasers

Brian C. Gahan Gas Technology Institute

Drilling for Oil and Gas in the US

Oil and Gas Wells Drilled, 1985-2000
Exploratory and Development
350 300 80

Total Footage Drilled (Millions of Feet)

250 200

60 50 40

150 30 100 50 0 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 20 10 0

Total Wells Drilled Per Year (000)

2

Total Footage Drilled (Oil, Gas, & Dry Holes) Petroleum Total Wells Completed

70

Drilling for Oil and Gas in the US

140 120 Dollars per Foot 100 80 60 40 20 0 1959 1964 1969 1974 1979 Year 1984 1989 1994
Average Cost per Foot

7000 6000 5000 4000 3000

Estimated Cost Per Foot and Average Depth Per Well of All Wells (Oil, Gas and Dry) Drilled Onshore in the U.S. from 1959 - 1999 (DeGolyer and MacNaughton, 2000)

Average Depth per Well

2000 1000 0
3

Depth (ft)

Drilling for Oil and Gas in the US

!

1990 GRI Study on Drilling Costs Major Categories Making Hole Changing Bits And Steel Casing Well & Formation Characteristics Total Drilling Time % of Total Time 48 27

25 100%
.

High-energy Laser Applications

Lasers could play a significant role as a vertical boring & perforating tool in gas well drilling

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.

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.

Laser Product Development

LASER BASIC RESEARCH

Laser FE Laser Drilling Assist

Laser Perf

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) CO2 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
Quarter Quarter 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 2000 3 Year 1 1 4 2 2001 1 3 2 4 3 Year 2 1 4 2 2002 1 3 2 4 3 Year 3 1 4 2 2003 1 3 2 4

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 Year 1 Quarter 1 2 Project Structure and Management Laser cutting energy assessment series Variable Pulse Laser Effects Conduct Lasing Through Liquids Topical Report 2 3 3 4

1.0

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

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 4

Spallation
Zone 3 - Significant Melt
SH10

3
SH11B2 SH18A SH13A SH11B1 SH15A2 SH15A1 SH12B1 SH2 SH6

2 1 0 0

R2 = 0.9095

SH12B2

Zone 2 - No Melt

SH8

Minimum SE
0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

0.2

0.4

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

1000

Sandstone

Limestone

Shale

100

10

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 20 15 10 5 0 0 0.5 Power (kW)
Dry rock samples

Dry

Wet

1
Water-saturated samples

Dry rock samples

Atmospheric Conditions
30