Exploring, drilling and completing hydrocarbon and other wells are generally complicated, time consuming and ultimately very expensive endeavors. In recognition of these expenses, added emphasis has been placed on efficiencies associated with well completions and maintenance over the life of the well. By the same token, offshore wells along with those of ever increasing depths and sophisticated architecture have emerged. Thus, added levels of complexity in terms of completions and maintenance have become fairly commonplace.
In terms of basic architecture, the terminal end of a cased well often extends into an open-hole lateral leg section. Such architecture may enhance access to the reservoir. At the same time, however, this basic architecture presents certain challenges when it comes to their completions and maintenance. For example, a variety of hardware may be installed near and above the lateral leg before production through the leg is commenced. Additionally, perforating, fracturing, gravel packing and a host of other applications may be directed at the leg in advance of production.
In order to carry out the different completions tasks, a formation isolation valve may be present at the juncture between the noted leg and cased regions thereabove. This valve may help to ensure a separation between completion and production fluids. More specifically, comparatively heavier fluids utilized during completions may be prone to adversely affect the formation if allowed to freely flow to the production region of the leg. By the same token, production of lighter high pressure fluids into the main bore during hardware installations may adversely affect such operations. By way of a more specific example, the leg may be outfitted with a formation isolation valve that is opened for gravel packing and other early stage leg applications. However, such a valve may be subsequently closed to isolate the open-hole portion of the leg as other completions tasks are carried out uphole of the leg.
As indicated, closing the valve may avoid fluid loss during completions operations and also maintain well control in the sense of avoiding premature production of well fluids. This closure may be achieved in conjunction with removal of application tools from the open-hole region of the leg. So, for example, following a gravel packing application in a lateral leg, a shifting device incorporated into the gravel packing wash pipe may be used to close off the valve as the assembly is removed from the area. Thus, completion of the application and retrieval of the tool involved may be sufficient to close the formation isolation valve.
Unfortunately, in certain circumstances, the valve may become stuck, thus, preventing retrieval of the tool and assembly as described above. Thus, continued pull on the assembly could potentially result in a breakage that might lead to a host of complications ranging from tool damage to expenses and delays associated with follow-on retrieval operations. Therefore, to avoid such complications, the shifting tool is generally configured with emergency release capacity as noted below.
The valve shifting tool works to shift open the formation isolation valve by interlocking engagement with a matching profile of the valve. More specifically, the tool engages a mandrel of the valve such that upon removal of the assembly, the mandrel is pulled uphole so as to close the valve. However, the engagement portion of the tool is configured for emergency release as noted above for circumstances where the valve has become stuck. So, for example, once a predetermined amount of uphole force has been exerted, and yet the mandrel remains stuck in place, the engagement portion of the tool may deflect out of engagement with the mandrel. More specifically, where 2,000 lbs. to 5,000 lbs. of force has been exceeded without mandrel shifting, the noted deflection will occur and the assembly will be safely removed from the well. In this manner, the tool may be retrieved from the valve and visually assessed at surface for any damage during the emergency release. However, as detailed further below, no such visual inspection or quick remedy is available for assessment and/or repair of the valve which is disposed far downhole.
As indicated, the described deflection and removal of the assembly avoids complications that might otherwise result from a broken tool. Unfortunately, however, this deflection and removal of the assembly still leaves an open formation isolation valve at the junction of the cased and open-hole well regions. Thus, for all intents and purposes the valve fails to achieve its intended use in terms of isolation. Further, as the typical emergency release process is likely to result in damage to the valve, it must be assumed that the valve is damaged such that typical work over remedies (e.g. flushing or circulating fluid to remove debris) will be ineffective in remedying the valve state. As a result, this means that another set of complications is now introduced. Namely, costly delays and expenses associated with the introduction of alternate interventions directed at the valve or new isolation techniques to compensate for valve failure will now likely be introduced.
Once more, even though the tool, in theory, may be constructed of materials capable of withstanding load pull far in excess of 5,000 lbs., deflection is generally set to take place at such relatively low thresholds. This is due to the fact that the engagement between the tool and the mandrel is of a multi-member or ‘collet’ variety which can result in a substantially uneven distribution of radial forces during the singularly upward pull. Therefore, as a practical matter, lower thresholds are presently required to prevent breakage of any individual collet member where such a deflection technique is employed for the emergency release. Therefore, as a practical matter, lower thresholds are presently required to prevent breakage or significant damage of any individual tool collet member where such a deflection technique is employed for the emergency release. This is particularly the case in light of added concerns over the effect such breakage may have on the valve as well.
A shifting tool is detailed for releasable engagement with an actuator. The tool includes a collet element with engagement and base portions having substantially greater thicknesses than that of a central region disposed therebetween. Thus, a predictable deformation of the region may ensue upon exposure to a given load. Of course, this summary is provided to introduce a selection of concepts that are further described below and is not intended as an aid in limiting the scope of the claimed subject matter.
Embodiments are described with reference to certain downhole assemblies that make use of a valve and valve actuator. In particular, production assemblies that are configured for disposal across cased and open-hole regions at various well locations are detailed. More specifically, subsea completions employing formation isolation valves are depicted. However, embodiments of a controllably releasable shifting tool as detailed herein may be directed at a variety of different actuator types. For example, actuators for triggering different types of valves, sliding sleeves, packer setting tools and other substantially permanent downhole devices may be configured for engagement with a shifting tool as described herein-below. Similarly, the oilfield environment need not be subsea as depicted. Regardless, however, the shilling tool is particularly configured to allow for controlled or ‘emergency’ release in a predictable and reliable manner heretofore unseen.
Referring now to
Unlike conventional emergency release techniques, the above noted disengagement of the tool 100 is achieved in a manner of enhanced controllability. More specifically, each collet element 130 is equipped with a discrete central deformable region 150. This region 150 is of a thickness that is substantially below that of the noted engagement portion 175. Similarly its thickness is substantially below that of a base portion 125 which is structurally secured to a delivery tool 110, in this case wash pipe. Thus, the central deformable region 150 is located between portions 125, 175 of substantially greater resistance to deformation upon imparting of a load on the tool 100. Ultimately, this type of distinctiveness of the region 150 may lead to a controlled deformation that provides a predictable release where appropriate.
As to specific potential differences in thickness between the central region 150 and the adjacent base 125 and engagement 175 portions, a wide range of options may be utilized. For example, for most embodiments, the difference in thickness may be anywhere between about 25% to about 90%. More specifically, in one embodiment a difference of between about 40-70% is employed with the deformable region 150 being of between about 75 to 125 thousandths of an inch thick compared to adjacent portions 125, 175 of between about 145-185 thousandths of an inch thick.
Of course, there is no particular requirement that the base 125 and engagement 175 portions be of identical thicknesses on a given collet element 130. However, in certain embodiments, each portion 125, 175 of a given collet element 130 is of substantially similar thickness. Further, to ensure predictability in the noted deformation, each central deformable region 150 of each collet element 130 is substantially similar in thickness. Indeed, by the same token, each base portion 125 of all collet elements 130 is substantially similar in thickness as is each engagement portion 175 relative one another. Once more, while each engagement portion 175 is of a keyed or changing profile, a transition location 127 of the portion 175 is provided which displays a consistency of thickness. Thus, as a matter of measured comparison for a given collet element 130, this location 127 of the engagement portion 175 is of substantially similar thickness to the base portion 125 in the preferred embodiment noted above.
Continuing with reference to
Referring now to
Continuing with added reference to
Continuing with reference to
Referring now to
With specific reference to
Additionally, in circumstances where the upward pull on the actuator mandrel 365 is compromised and stuck, the shifting tool 100 is outfitted with collet elements 130 that are configured to avoid pull induced tool breakage. That is, upon exceeding a load pull in excess of a predetermined amount, the tool 100 will ultimately disengage from the mandrel 365 regardless of whether or not a completed valve closure has been achieved. More specifically, in one embodiment, a load in excess of 50,000 lbs. will result in disengagement of the engagement portion 175 relative a recess 367 of the mandrel 365, provided certain sequential movement occurs as detailed further below. Having such substantial loads available without undue concern over damage to the tool 100 and/or mandrel 365 also increases the likelihood that a stuck actuator may be dislodged and unstuck prior to disengagement and release. Further, the substantial load may be applied for longer time than previously possible. That is, the more time spent applying the load, the more time the force is transmitted and propagated through the system. Thus, the likelihood is increased of overcoming obstacles such as debris or corrosion that may impede valve functionality.
With added reference to
With more specific reference now to
Continuing with reference to
With added reference to
In one embodiment, the initial deformation at 401 is achieved by application of loads upwards of 25,000 lbs. as noted above. The continued increase in load may result in additional discrete deformations 402, 403 of
Continuing with reference to
With added reference to
Referring now to
Continuing with reference to
Referring now to
Once in place, the shilling tool may be utilized for activating the actuator as indicated at 735. So, in the example of the valve noted above, the valve may be closed by such activation. However, in circumstances where the activation fails due to a stuck actuator arm or mandrel, collet element regions of the shifting tool may be controllably deformed as noted at 765. This is achieved through the use of comparatively thin central regions of each collet element. Thus, unpredictable collet breakage and/or unduly low load pull tolerances (e.g. below about 10,000 lbs.) may be avoided. In fact, even in circumstances where load pull is sought to remain below a given amount, say about 50,000 lbs., multiple cycles of load pull may be utilized as indicated at 780. As such, the controlled deformation may be achieved without application of a continuous pull of substantially greater amounts.
Regardless, with either the actuator shifted or the controlled collapse achieved, the shifting tool may be released from engagement as indicated at 750. Thus, as noted at 795, the delivery and shifting tools may be safely removed from the well.
Embodiments described hereinabove include tools and techniques for allowing emergency release of a shifting tool in a controlled and reliable manner. Once more, the controlled release is reliable enough that release need not be set at a load of less than 10,000 lbs. In fact, application of load pull in excess of 50,000 to 100,000 lbs. or more may be safely utilized without undue concern over shifting tool breakage in a downhole location. As a result, stuck actuator arms may be more frequently dislodged or unstuck with the shifting tool already in place. Thus, downhole operations may proceed in a more streamlined fashion with less frequent need for separate interventions to address stuck actuator arms.
The preceding description has been presented with reference to presently preferred embodiments. Persons skilled in the art and technology to which these embodiments pertain will appreciate that alterations and changes in the described structures and methods of operation may be practiced without meaningfully departing from the principle, and scope of these embodiments. Regardless, the foregoing description should not be read as pertaining only to the precise structures described and shown in the accompanying drawings, but rather should be read as consistent with and as support for the following claims, which are to have their fullest and fairest scope.
This Patent Document claims priority under 35 U.S.C. §119 to U.S. Provisional App. Ser. No. 61/495,711, filed on Jun. 10, 2011, and entitled, “Collet Based Shifting Tool”, incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5156210 | Roth | Oct 1992 | A |
5183114 | Mashaw | Feb 1993 | A |
5305833 | Collins | Apr 1994 | A |
5984006 | Read et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6349767 | Gissler | Feb 2002 | B2 |
6978842 | Read, Jr. et al. | Dec 2005 | B2 |
7347289 | Lee | Mar 2008 | B2 |
20020033281 | Aumann et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20040079531 | Smith et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040094310 | Read | May 2004 | A1 |
20060090900 | Mullen et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060260818 | Meijer et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20090065213 | Burnett | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090255664 | Hart et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20100108323 | Wilkin | May 2010 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20120312555 A1 | Dec 2012 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61495711 | Jun 2011 | US |