Embodiments described relate to expandable structures for use at a well site. In particular, embodiments detailed herein are focused on deployment of expandable structures within a well. Each structure is configured with an outer diameter defined by its interfacing of the wall of the well. Further, each structure may be configured to also allow for the sequential top down deployment of further structures downhole thereof, without a requirement that further uphole structures be first removed.
Exploring, drilling and completing hydrocarbon and other wells are generally complicated and ultimately very expensive endeavors. In recognition of the potentially enormous expenses involved, added emphasis is regularly placed on streamlining the processes of drilling, completions, and even intervening well applications which require some degree of access. That is, by streamlining the amount of time and equipment employed over the course of various drilling, completions and interventions, a dramatic effect on the overall amount of expenses consumed by a given well may be realized.
One manner by which streamlining of well applications is often pursued is in the area of interventions. So, for example, where a wellbore operation such as a well treatment application is to be run, mobile coiled tubing equipment may be employed. That is, rather than reconstruct a large scale rig over the well to support a subsequent treatment application, a relatively mobile coiled tubing truck and injector may be delivered to the well site. Thus, coiled tubing from a reel at the truck may be run through the injector and advanced into the well to a treatment location therein.
The ‘rig-less’ nature of coiled tubing as described above, may save a degree of time and equipment expenses in avoiding a complete up-rigging of tools. Nevertheless, a fair amount of equipment is located at the well site, such as the noted injector and pressure control equipment (often referred to as a blow-out preventor (BOP) stack). Furthermore, a multi-tool toolstring of variable diameter is located at the end of the coiled tubing and must be run through the BOP, tool by tool, in order to be made available for advancement to the treatment location.
Unfortunately, a whole host of well, tool and downhole device diameter issues present challenges to completions and interventional applications, streamlined or otherwise. With specific reference to a coiled tubing treatment as noted above, the variable diameter toolstring may require as much as two hours per tool to load through the BOP. This is due to each tool being individually loaded and coupled to the next tool and/or coiled tubing end, so as to maintain controlled pressurization. All in all, depending on the length of the toolstring and number of tools involved, it may take about 15-30 hours to completely load the toolstring. At an average cost of about $50,000 per hour, simply equipping the site for the treatment application may become extremely expensive.
Other forms of completions or interventional streamlining may also face certain diameter-related challenges or limitations even after downhole access is successfully achieved. One such limitation, relates to the general requirement that downhole device fixtures be deployed in a bottom-up fashion. So, for example, where multiple packers are to be deployed and left in a well for zonal isolation, the downhole packer is first deployed, followed by the deployment of a more uphole packer. That is, unlike a spot treatment, the deployment of a fixture such as the initially deployed packer would present an obstacle to later deployment of a packer further downhole. Thus, where a fixture is to be deployed, it is deployed after all further downhole access is completed.
Unfortunately, requiring access take place in a particular sequential order, such as the above-noted bottom-up access, places a significant limitation on operational flexibility. For example, in the noted case of packer deployment, the placement of the first packer serves as an obstruction preventing delivery of another packer or tool downhole of the initial packer. Thus, in order to access regions of the well below a fixed packer, a packer removal application must first be run. Similar scenarios hold true for a variety of downhole fixtures. For example, in the area of completions, once production tubing is firmly affixed downhole, the possibility of extending the depth of production tubing is hampered by the fixed presence of the production tubing already in place.
Any number of additional well, tool, and device diameter-related issues arise on a regular basis at the oilfield. Indeed, even the presumed diameter of the well itself generally varies by as much as a couple of inches. All in all, operators are faced with diameter-related challenges from the time deployment equipment outside of the well is utilized until post-completion access is sought and everywhere in between. As a result, significant practical limitations exist when attempting to employ flexibility or streamline such applications.
An expandable structure is disclosed for deployment in a well. The structure may include a plurality of linked modules. Together, these modules may dynamically define an outer diameter of the structure based on an inner diameter of the well upon the deployment.
The expandable structure may be passively deployed. Additionally, at least one of the modules may include a locking mechanism. The locking mechanism may serve to immobilize a first member of the module at a pre-determined angular position relative to a second member of the module, thereby maintaining or locking the deployment in place.
Embodiments are described with reference to certain techniques, equipment and tools for downhole use. In particular, focus is drawn to methods and devices which are employed at an open-hole well in the form of fixed production tubing and coiled tubing delivery equipment. However, a host of alternate forms of downhole devices and delivery techniques may be employed which take advantage of embodiments of closed loop kinematics mechanisms as detailed herein. Such mechanisms, referred to herein as expandable structures, may also be employed in constructing expandable packers, restrictions, support structure and a host of other oilfield device and deployment uses. Regardless, when deployed downhole in a well, the structure includes linked modules configured to act together in dynamically defining an outer diameter thereof based on the diameter of the well.
Referring now to
The difference between a structure's expanded and collapsed state is referred to as its expansion ratio. In the embodiments of
Continuing with reference to the expanded structure 100 of
Of course, each module 125 is also linked to each adjacent module 125 through pivots 152, 156 at either end thereof. For example, an inner arm pivot 156 connects the arm 155 each forward member 150 to the arm 155 of each rearward member 175. Similarly adjacent members 150, 175 are linked through an outer abutting pivot 152. With reference to the collapsed structure 101, these same features may be seen upon inspection of members 151 which are oriented in the collapsed position (e.g. revealing internal pivots originating at a truly internal position in advance of structure expansion).
Each module 125 is equipped with a locking mechanism 170 mounted to each rearward member 175. As detailed below, this mechanism 170 serves as a locking interface between the members 150, 175 so as to ensure maintenance of the expanded state of the structure 100 following synchronized rotation of the members 150, 175 from a collapsed state (such as that of the collapsed structure 101). Additionally, in certain embodiments, each structure 100, 101 may be encircled by a compliant material layer 110, 111 (e.g. about its main body 115, 116).
As detailed below, the compliant material layers 110, 111 may be of elastomers or other materials suitable for downhole use, particularly for interfacing and/or sealing engagement with a well wall 382 (see
In a related alternate embodiment, the outer layers 110, 111 of the structures 100, 101 may be made up of a unitary stretchable sealing material as opposed to the multi-wrapped configuration as depicted in
Referring now to
As noted above, and with added reference to
With the above concept of further expansion in mind,
Referring now to
Continuing with reference to
Continuing with reference to
Given that the depicted collapsed structure 101 is to be delivered to a deviated portion of the well 380, surface equipment 350 is provided which includes coiled tubing 310, particularly adept at such delivery. Namely, a coiled tubing truck 330 is provided which accommodates a conventional coiled tubing reel 340 and control unit 350 for directing the operation. A mobile tower 360 is also provided for support of an injector 365 which may be employed to forcibly drive the coiled tubing 310 from the reel 340 and through the well 380. Further, in reaching the well 380, the coiled tubing 310 and collapsed structure 101 are advanced through valving and pressure control equipment 370 often referred to as a ‘Christmas Tree’ or BOP (blow-out-preventor stack).
In certain embodiments, expandable structure concepts, such as those detailed herein, may be employed in conjunction with the injector 365, BOP 370 and other equipment to aid in the driving of the coiled tubing 310 through the well 380. Indeed, embodiments of achieving an inchworm-like conveyance through the inner diameter of expandable/collapsible structures in series are detailed throughout co-pending U.S. application Ser. No. 12/034,191 (Wellsite Systems Utilizing Deployable Structure), incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. With BOP pressure control requirements in mind, employing such structures and techniques may save countless hours and expenses in achieving well access. For example, consider the varying diameters involved in driving the coiled tubing 310, production tubing structures 100, 101, or even a multi-tool toolstring (not depicted), into the well 380. An inchworm-like conveyance with expandable/collapsible structures may be utilized to maintain pressure control while simultaneously avoiding the need to re-set pressure valving and equipment with each encountering of a new diameter feature.
Continuing with the noted example scenario of
Again, deployment of the structures 100, 101 from the collapsed state to an expanded state may be achieved through a variety of techniques as detailed throughout co-pending U.S. application Ser. Nos. 12/034,191 (Wellsite Systems Utilizing Deployable Structure) and 11/962,256 (System and Methods for Actuating Reversible Expandable Structures). As detailed in these co-pending applications, such techniques may include the use of a rotary actuator, lever-type actuator, Peaucellier-Lipkin linkages, and others.
In one embodiment, the collapsed structure 101 may be delivered and deployed at a location substantially downhole of the depicted expanded structure 100, For example, a subsequent bottom-up expansion of the reach of the production tubing 325 may be sought. Of course, such delivery of the collapsed structure 101 may also be used to line or close off other regions of the open-hole well 380, perhaps even the production region 395 itself. Regardless, both top-down and bottom-up construction are rendered practical options for the operator along with any other isolated delivery of a structure 101 downhole of the initial expanded structure 100.
Referring now to
The deployed structure 100 of
Referring now to
In addition to the conformable material 525 described above, the material layer 110 includes an anti-friction material 550 disposed at the underside of the conformable material 525. This anti-friction material 550 may be any number of materials suitable for allowing the unwrapping or unraveling of adjacent layers of conformable material 525 as the main bodies 115 move from the collapsed to expanded states as detailed hereinabove. Such anti-friction material 550 may include a thermoplastic polymer such as polyether ether ketone (PEEK) or any number of materials suitable for avoiding frictional obstacles to such unwrapping or unraveling as described.
Referring now to
Once reaching a targeted location within the well, the structure may be expanded to a level as defined by the well itself. In this sense, the deployment may be referred to as a passive deployment as indicated at 635. Additionally, as indicated at 655 upon deployment, the structure may be locked at a minimum level of expansion to ensure that it does not subsequently collapse downhole. This may even be followed by additional ratcheting up expansion beyond an initial predetermined minimum level as indicated at 675. Furthermore, once expanded, deployment of the given structure may be followed by advancement of another expandable structure into and/or through the given structure as indicated at 695. From this point, the other structure may be advanced further downhole, passively expanded, or otherwise deployed in a manner similar to the given structure as indicated at 635, 655 and 675.
Embodiments described hereinabove include structures and techniques for addressing a host of oilfield diameter related challenges. These structures and techniques may be utilized to dramatically curtail the amount of time required to deploy tools and structures into a well without sacrifice to pressure control. Furthermore, as detailed herein more extensively, such structures and techniques may be utilized to overcome the requirement of deploying device fixtures solely in a bottom-up fashion. As a result, options for deploying structures such as packers, production tubing, sleeves and other devices downhole may be dramatically opened up.
Furthermore, persons skilled in the art and technology to which these embodiments pertain will appreciate that still other 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. For example, rather than utilizing a conformable material for the compliant layer, the main bodies of the expandable structures may be outfitted with structural compliant members extending from the outer surfaces thereof. In this manner, a plurality of biased structural elements may be utilized to account for any dimensional or physical variability at the interface of the well and structure. Additionally, while depicted as relatively circular or circumferential herein, the expandable structures may be expandable to a variety of shapes, including elliptical, polygonal and other configurations. 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 is a continuation-in-part claiming priority under 35 U.S.C. §120 to U.S. application Ser. No. 12/034,191 entitled Wellsite Systems Utilizing Deployable Structure, filed on Feb. 20, 2008 now U.S. Pat. No. 7,896,088, and which is a continuation-in-part under 35 U.S.C. §120 to U.S. application Ser. No. 11/962,256 entitled System and Methods for Actuating Reversible Expandable Structures, filed on Dec. 21, 2007, both of which are incorporated herein by reference in their entireties.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
366365 | Averberg | Jul 1887 | A |
3066637 | Akutowicz | Dec 1962 | A |
3575238 | Shillander | Apr 1971 | A |
3606924 | Malone | Sep 1971 | A |
3623566 | Orloff | Nov 1971 | A |
3982248 | Archer | Sep 1976 | A |
4105215 | Rathburn | Aug 1978 | A |
4222577 | Giffin | Sep 1980 | A |
4345658 | Danel et al. | Aug 1982 | A |
4424861 | Carter, Jr. et al. | Jan 1984 | A |
4787302 | Waltman et al. | Nov 1988 | A |
4942700 | Hoberman | Jul 1990 | A |
5005658 | Bares et al. | Apr 1991 | A |
5024031 | Hoberman | Jun 1991 | A |
5038532 | Shahinpoor | Aug 1991 | A |
5069572 | Niksic | Dec 1991 | A |
5261488 | Gullet et al. | Nov 1993 | A |
5448567 | Dighe et al. | Sep 1995 | A |
5448867 | Wilson | Sep 1995 | A |
5788002 | Richter | Aug 1998 | A |
6082056 | Hoberman | Jul 2000 | A |
6219974 | Hoberman | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6248096 | Dwork et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6299173 | Lai | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6379071 | Sorvino | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6512345 | Borenstein et al. | Jan 2003 | B2 |
6513601 | Gunnarsson et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6601652 | Moore et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6910533 | Guerrero | Jun 2005 | B2 |
7044245 | Anhalt et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7059410 | Bousche et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7137993 | Acosta et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7156192 | Guerrero et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7235046 | Anhalt et al. | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7334642 | Doering et al. | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7401665 | Guerrero et al. | Jul 2008 | B2 |
7704275 | Schmid et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
20020042314 | Mimura | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020107562 | Hart et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20040080563 | Leemhuis | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040097876 | Shkolnik | May 2004 | A1 |
20040220012 | Siman-tov | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20050016302 | Simpson | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050090893 | Kavteladze et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20070089886 | Orban et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
0118619 | Sep 1984 | EP |
0010601 | Dec 1986 | EP |
0101805 | Dec 1986 | EP |
00106016 | Dec 1986 | EP |
0443408 | Feb 1994 | EP |
0455850 | May 1995 | EP |
1005884 | Jun 2000 | EP |
1072295 | Jan 2001 | EP |
1073825 | Feb 2001 | EP |
1219754 | Jul 2002 | EP |
1350917 | Oct 2003 | EP |
2368082 | Apr 2002 | GB |
2371066 | Jul 2002 | GB |
2397084 | Jul 2004 | GB |
2004000137 | Dec 1986 | WO |
9727396 | Jul 1997 | WO |
0263111 | Aug 2002 | WO |
03054318 | Jul 2003 | WO |
2005008023 | Jan 2005 | WO |
2005031115 | Apr 2005 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Abou, B., D Bonn and J. Meunier, “Nonlinear Rheology of Laponite Suspensions Under an External Drive” J. Rheol. 47, 2003, pp. 979-988. |
“The Apple Snail Website” , Jul. 27, 2006, http://www.applesnail.net/content/species/asolene—asolene—spixi.htm. |
Ashmore, J., C. Del Pinto, and T. Mullin, “Cavitation in a Lubrication Flow Between a Moving Sphere and a Boundary.” Physical Review Letters 94, 2005, pp. 124501-1 to 124501-4. |
Balmforth, N.J., and R.V. Craster, “A Consistent Thin-Layer Theory for Bingham Plastics.” J. Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech. 84, 1999, pp. 65-81. |
Cook, G. “MIT Scientists Copy the Snail's Pace.” The Boston Globe, Jul. 3, 2003: A1. |
Denny, M. “The Role of Gastropod Pedal Mucus in Locomotion” Nature 285, May 1980, pp. 160-161. |
Denny, M.W. A Quantitative Model for the Adhesive Locomotion of the Terrestrial Slug, Ariolimax Columbianus, J. Exp. Biol, 91, 1981, pp. 195-217. |
Hancock, G.J. “The Self-Propulsion of Microscopio Organisms Through Liquids” Proceeding of the Royal Society of London, Series A., Mathematical and Physical Sciences 217, 1953, pp. 96-121. |
Itoh, et al. “Film Structure Soft Actuator for Biominetics of Snail's Gastropod Locomotion” 6th International Conference Control, Automation, Robotics and Vision ICARCV'2000, 2000. |
Lissman, H.W. “The Mechanism of Locomotion in Gastropod Molluscs” The Journal of Experimental Biology 21, 1945, pp. 58-69. |
Lissman, H.W. “The Mechanism of Locomotion in Gastropod Molluscs” The Journal of Experimental Biology 22, 1946, pp. 37-50. |
Mahadevan et al. “Biominetic Ratcheting Motion of a Soft, Slender, Sessile Gel” PNAS 101 (1), 2004, pp. 23-26. |
Moffett, S. “Locomotion in the Primitive Pulmonate Snail Melampus Bidentatus: Foot Structure and Function” The Biological Bulletin 157, Oct. 1979, pp. 306-319. |
Reynalds, O. “On the Theory of Lubrication and its Application to Mr. Beauchamp Tower's Experiments, Including and Experimental Determination of the Viscosity of Olive Oil” Philos, Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 177, 1886, pp. 157-235. |
Skotheim, J.M. et al. “Soft Lubrication” Physical Review Letters vol. 92, No. 24, Jun. 2004, pp. 245509-1 to 245509-4. |
Taylor, G. “Analysis of the Swimming of Miscroscopic Organism” Processings of the Royal Society of London, Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences 209, 1951, pp. 447-461. |
Vles, F. “Zoologie.—Su les ondes pedieuses des Mollusques reptateurs” C.R. Acad. Sci., Paris 145, 1907, pp. 276-278. |
Willenbacher, N. “Unsual Thixotropic Properties of Aqueous Dispersions of Laponite RD” Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 182, 1996, pp. 501-510. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20100243274 A1 | Sep 2010 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 12034191 | Feb 2008 | US |
Child | 12713758 | US | |
Parent | 11962256 | Dec 2007 | US |
Child | 12034191 | US |