The present invention relates to the field of well completion. More particularly, the present invention relates to apparatuses and methods for the completion and stimulation of hydrocarbon-producing or other formations by the generation of smaller diameter boreholes from a parent or main borehole by hydraulic jetting, drilling or other excavation techniques.
This section is intended to introduce selected aspects of the art, which may be associated with various embodiments of the present disclosure. This discussion is believed to assist in providing a framework to facilitate a better understanding of particular aspects of the present disclosure. Accordingly, it should be understood that this section should be read in this light, and not necessarily as admissions of prior art.
In the downhole hydraulic jetting of small diameter boreholes radially outward from a parent (cased . . . or more usually, cased and cemented) wellbore or (openhole) borehole, a downhole deviation device is commonly utilized. The function of such a device, which may be referred to as a “deflection shoe” or, as used herein, a “whipstock”, is to direct a flexible conduit (e.g., a “jetting hose”) and nozzle affixed to its distal end (combined, the “jetting assembly”) along a desired azimuth. In most downhole hydraulic jetting systems, the jetting assembly is run into the wellbore in a generally elongated state, such that its longitudinal axis is generally the same as the host wellbore's. Thus, to generate a new, small diameter borehole (e.g., a “mini-lateral borehole” or Ultra Deep Perforation, “UDP”) radially outward from the parent wellbore, it is required to turn the jetting assembly from a direction beginning generally longitudinal to the parent wellbore towards the final, desired (new) longitudinal axis for the jetting assembly that extends on out into the targeted formation. Typically, this new desired azimuth for the jetting nozzle and hose is generally perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the wellbore . . . regardless of whether the host wellbore is vertical or horizontal. Note, it is the latter (horizontal) wellbore orientation that comprises approximately 90% of all wells currently being drilled in the domestic U.S., and essentially all wells designed for completion in unconventional (especially shale) reservoirs.
As cited in the precedent works, in a cased wellbore situation, the whipstocks described therein provide an arcuate path for the jetting assembly that utilizes the entire casing inner diameter for the jetting assembly to make its turn. Generally, this can be from a trajectory starting parallel to the longitudinal axis of the parent wellbore and ending, at the portal from which the jetting assembly exits the whipstock, at a trajectory generally perpendicular to the wellbore. Thus, at the point of a desired casing exit, for the jetting nozzle to be oriented at the desired exit trajectory, the arc length followed by the jetting assembly has heretofore been almost entirely confined within the body of the whipstock itself. And, because the body of the whipstock must be translatable up and down the inner confines of the casing, said available arc length has thereby been proportionally limited by the inner diameter of the casing.
Depending on the convention, the rated “minimum bend radius” (“MBR”) of a high pressure hydraulic hose can be measured to the centerline of the hose, or to its inside edge. The latter is probably the most popular, while the former is more often found in the context of bending tubulars. For discussion purposes herein, the minimum bend radius of a jetting hose will be defined as: “ . . . the smallest diameter that a looped hose can achieve without damage and is measured as the distance to the inside edge of the hose (not the center line) when making a 90-degree bend.” [https://www.crossco.com/resources/technical-bulletins-guides/bend-radius-in-hydraulic-hose/] Note this definition presumes the 90-degree bend is occurring in a single plane. In general, as regards the construction of high pressure hoses, the higher the permissible operating pressure, the more layers of reinforcement are required. This causes the hose's minimum bend radius rating to be proportionately higher . . . that is, the arc radius required to bend the hose 90° is generally larger as the hose's working and burst pressure ratings (and the commensurate number of pressure reinforcement layers) increases.
The importance of this relationship to well completions utilizing radial hydraulic jetting (“RHJ”) cannot be overstated. The ability to bore rock with a hydraulic fluid or slurry . . . and to achieve a cost-effective penetration rate . . . is entirely dependent upon the specific energy (“SE”) and thus the hydraulic horsepower (“HHP”) deliverable to the jetting nozzle. The higher the rate and pressure of the slurry (and thus the deliverable HHP) as it exits the nozzle, the better the result. (That is, assuming the slurry's impact pressure upon the target rock face is at least greater than the rock's threshold pressure, PTH, only above which can any erosional boring take place.) Hence, the difference in being able to commercially apply RHJ in the completion of a given formation, versus not being able to, may very well come down to the diameter and pressure rating of the applicable jetting hose.
The importance of maximizing the jetting hose I.D. for a given hydraulic jetting operation cannot be over emphasized. The Darcy equation for the pressure drop of liquid flow in a horizontal pipe.
(Source: https://petrowiki.org/Pressure_drop_evaluation_along_pipelines#General_equation) is:
. . . where, f=Moody friction factor (dimensionless); and L=pipe length, ft; and V=velocity, ft/sec; and ΔP=pressure drop, psi: and ρ=density, lbm/ft3; and d=pipe inside diameter, in. A simple rearrangement of this equation and a substitution of the liquid flow rate. Ql (in barrels per day) for the velocity, V, reveals for a fluid of specific gravity (SG) . . .
that the pressure drop due to friction is inversely proportional to the I.D. of the conduit to the fifth power.
Note the determination of the applicable Moody friction factor, f, in Equations 1 and 2 is somewhat complex, in that it is empirically derived as a function of both: (1) the relative roughness of the interior surface of the fluid conduit, (∈/d), where ∈ is the absolute roughness of the interior conduit surface and d is again the interior diameter; and, (2) the flow regime of the fluid (laminar, turbulent, or intermediate). The latter is quantified by determination of the applicable Reynolds number, Re, a dimensionless parameter that characterizes the degree of turbulence in the flow regime. For a single-phase liquid, the Reynolds number is determined as . . .
. . . where μ=viscosity, in centipoise; and d=pipe inside diameter, inches; and (SG)=specific gravity of liquid relative to water (water=1); and Ql=liquid-flow rate, Barrels/Day. In the simplest case of laminar flow (Re<2,000) there is little mixing of the liquid as it flows through the conduit, thus presenting an essentially parabolic velocity profile. The Moody friction factor determination is then rather straightforward: f=64/Re. Note determination of the relative roughness, (∈/d), is not needed here. For turbulent flow (Re>4,000) complete mixing of the flowing fluid occurs, thus presenting a uniform velocity profile. In this case calculation of the Moody friction factor, f, is arrived at by first obtaining the empirically determined absolute roughness, ∈, which is in units of length. Values of ∈, observed from lab experiments and published for various materials, are readily available. For example, carbon steel has an absolute roughness of 0.00015 feet, fiberglass epoxy an absolute roughness of 0.000025 feet, thermoplastics and drawn tubing 0.000005 feet. Note this later value would include Teflon. PTFE and PFA-PTFE, and would thus apply to many jetting hoses. Once the relative roughness of the interior surface of the fluid conduit, (∈/d) is obtained, then a Moody friction factor chart can be entered, or computer algorithm employed, to yield the Moody friction factor, f. Fortunately jetting hose manufacturers provide automated versions of the above exercise, such as Gates' https://www.gates.com/us/en/resources/calculators/fluid-flow-pressure-calculator. This simulator has been utilized to construct
It comes as no surprise then, that when the ordinate of
Y=(Coefficient)·X(Exponent) [Equation 4]
For each of the jetting hose I.D.'s represented in
In summary, for a downhole hydraulic jetting system having an operation constrained by the operating pressure of the jetting fluid . . . and particularly for one deployed on coiled tubing . . . THE most important determinant of rock destructive force deliverable to the jetting nozzle is the I.D. of the jetting hose.
Of course, for any rock penetration to occur at all, the entirety of the jetting operation must be performed at jetting nozzle discharge pressures, PJ's, in excess of the rock threshold pressure, PTh. Further, for the UDP's hole excavation to be performed within an acceptable time frame, the rate of penetration (“ROP”, in feet per minute, which is the same as “ER”, the Erosion Rate) must be acceptable as well. A formal derivation of ROP as a function of the Specific Energy Requirement, SER, is presented in a precedent work, U.S. Pat. No. 8,752,651; “Downhole Hydraulic Jetting Assembly, and Method for Stimulating a Production Wellbore”, issued Jun. 17, 2014, and is incorporated herein by reference. Equation 25 as presented therein is as follows:
Seminal conclusions from this work are: Assuming PJ>PTh, the achievable Erosion Rate, ER, of a radial lateral being hydraulically jetted will be linearly proportional to the pump rate, Q, that can be achieved. It should be noted that, for both rocks for which hydraulic drilling penetration (e.g., Power Output-vs-ER) data could be compiled, (Darley Dale and Berea sandstones) b>1.0. Hence, according to Equation 4, as long as PJ>PTh, and b>1.0, the dominant determinant of ER will not be the jetting pressure, PJ, but will be the pump rate, Q. Hence, the ultimate success, and eventual commerciality of any lateral borehole erosional system will be governed by how effectively and efficiently it can put the maximum hydraulic horsepower output (P.O.) at the jetting nozzle, and specifically, by how well it can maximize the pump rate, Q, at jetting pressures PJ greater than the threshold pressure, PTh.
Obviously then, both of the major determinants of ER, the pump rate, Q, and the jetting pressure difference above threshold at the rock face, (PJ−PTh), benefit from the maximum jetting hose I.D. that can be employed. Recall that generally, the higher the jetting pressure, the thicker wall of jetting hose is required, regardless of whether supporting layers are spiral or braided wire, braided wire or Kevlar, etc. It is also generally true that these additional wall support requirements typically inflict a proportionally greater minimum bend radius (“MBR”) requirement. Note also the greater the jetting hose's wall thickness for a desired I.D., the greater the jetting hose's O.D., and hence the greater the jetted hole (UDP's) diameter required to conduct it. Obviously, this imposes a proportionally increased excavation target area and hole excavation volume . . . precisely, to an exponentially squared power (
Obviously, at downhole conditions, the governing issue here is one of confinement. For a cased wellbore, the precedent works cited herein note the advancement of being able to utilize the entire inner diameter of the casing for the jetting hose to make its requisite bend. This is significant, in that the availability to accommodate, say, just an additional half-inch for the bend radius of a given jetting hose may be the difference in being able to utilize the next higher I.D. and/or pressure rating of jetting hose. This newfound ability to “upsize” the jetting hose for a given formation may be the difference in being able to commercially apply RHJ, or not.
Critical to this process is delivery of the jetting slurry at flow rates and pressures (specifically, above the formation's Threshold Pressure, “PTh”) that can provide adequate hydraulic horsepower (“HHP”), and thus Specific Energy (“SE”) to the jetting nozzle for economic generation of UDP's in a given pay zone. Typically the constraints that limit these crucial deliveries are found entirely within the jetting hose; e.g., its inner diameter (“I.D.”) and working pressure (“WP”) . . . both of which being key determinants of the jetting hose's minimum bend radius (“MBR”) requirement. Generally, due to the materials and methods of hose construction, these are always positively correlated: the larger the I.D. and WP requirements. the larger the MBR necessary to bend the jetting hose to its desired azimuth. Heretofore, the upper limit of an acceptable MBR has been dictated by the I.D. of the wellbore's casing or the (openhole) borehole.
Ideally speaking, one would like to deliver all of the HHP generated by the high pressure surface pumps, plus any vertical head gain from subsurface depth, directly to the jetting nozzle. Practically, however, system losses preclude such an ideal delivery. In most RHJ systems, the greatest loss is due to friction forces imposed on the jetting fluid by the I.D. of the jetting hose. Hence, the largest I.D. of jetting hose is desired in order to minimize these losses, which in turn increases the O.D. of the jetting hose. Similarly. the highest possible jetting pressure is desired at the jetting nozzle. But the higher the jetting pressure, the greater the pressure rating is required of the jetting hose, and thus a proportional increase of jetting hose wall strength is incurred to withstand the burst forces. Though the choice of hose materials and type of construction can reduce hose wall thickness, generally speaking, the higher the burst resistance desired, the thicker the hose wall required. This has at least two detrimental RHJ system design effects:
Compare, for example, the last two lines of Table 1. To increase the mini-lateral's diameter from 1.50 inches to 2.56 inches is roughly just over two-thirds (70.7%) of an increase. However, say for a 300 foot UDP length, this same two-thirds diameter increase mandates an almost three-told (291%) increase in the rock volume excavation requirement.
Hence, RHJ system design optimization involves: (1) optimizing the mini-lateral's diameter (and hence, the requisite volume of casing, cement, and rock to be excavated) while concurrently maximizing the penetration rate by which the mini-lateral can be jetted; and thus, (2) maximizing HHP and SE delivery to the jetting nozzle; while, (3) accommodating the confinement of the cased wellbore and the RHJ tool string, and specifically their constraints imposed on the jetting hose's MBR. All of these three factors are direct drivers in the selection process of an appropriate jetting hose for a given RHJ application. Specifically, #1 and #3 benefit from a smaller diameter(s) jetting hose, while #2 benefits from a larger hose I.D. In almost all cases, it is the confinement limitations of #3 that impose a detrimental reduction in the bend radius available for the jetting hose to make its requisite turn. This commensurately sacrifices the delivery of the desired HHP and SE in #2, thus yielding sub-optimum UDP mini-lateral diameters and/or penetration rates (#1)
Thus, what is needed is an apparatus and method of dynamically growing and forming the arcuate path for the bending of the jetting hose, and to be able to do so (at least partially) outside the constraints of the wellbore's I.D. That is, whereby the initial, curved portion of the UDP's trajectory is no longer limited to the I.D. of the wellbore itself . . . or more specifically, to the static pathway provided by a diversion tool (diverter shoe or whipstock) that must function within said wellbore's I.D. Dynamic formation of the arcuate UDP path would mean that, while hydraulically boring through the casing, then cement, and finally the near-wellbore formation (the combination of these three borings comprising the initial, curved segment of the UDP) the arcuate bending path of the jetting hose is simultaneously formed and established. Also it is desired that, upon its full extension, such an extendible whipstock's sleeve fully appends the arcuate bending path for the jetting hose initiated within the body of the whipstock itself. Thus, these two curved segments of the hose path (both the in- and ex-whipstock portions) would preferably combine to direct the jetting assembly arcuately to its target azimuth relative to the longitudinal axis of the wellbore. In addition, it is desired that even while fully extended, the sleeve has sufficient length such that its proximal end will always reside within, and be stabilized by, the rigid body of the whipstock. Conversely, it is desired that the segment(s) comprising this apparatus are short enough such that they are fully retractable within the body of the whipstock. Thus, the telescoping segment(s) comprising the sleeve would not be damaged while, nor impede, translating the whipstock within the wellbore. Accordingly, said retraction of the telescoping segment(s) up into the body of the whipstock would preferably occur no later than the retraction of the distal end of the jetting assembly itself (that is, the jetting nozzle). And lastly, it is desired that the wall body thickness(es) of the segment(s) comprising the sleeve would not impose a detrimental increase in the requisite casing exit and mini-lateral diameters.
The present invention alleviates the problems and satisfies the needs discussed above. The systems and methods described herein have various benefits in the conducting of oil and gas well completion activities.
In one aspect, a retractable, telescoping whipstock bend radius extension is provided. The extendible whipstock and its telescoping sleeve provide an arcuate path to alter the trajectory of the jetting hose or other flexible conduit such that interference will preferably be initiated between the jetting slurry and the inner surface of the well casing (or, in an open hole application, the parent borehole wall). The ensuing jetting fluid contacts and erodes the well casing thereby permitting the creation of the small diameter borehole through the wall of the well casing. The hydraulic jetting operation then continues with the protrusion of the jetting assembly through the well casing and well cement, continuing directionally radially outward from the well casing and wellbore further into the rock formation to a pre-determined distance thereby creating an Ultra Deep Perforation (UDP). (See
In another aspect, there is provided an actuatable telescoping extension, or “sleeve”, from a whipstock that may be protracted upon deployment of a jetting assembly or other excavation assembly, and subsequently retracted upon retrieval of the assembly. When deployed, the inner face of the telescoping extension serves to extend the arcuate path initially defined by the inner channel of the whipstock body itself, thereby guiding the jetting assembly in a pre-determined direction relative to the longitudinal axis of the parent wellbore or borehole. Thus, the extendible whipstock enables the jetting assembly to arrive at its desired trajectory over a longer distance than otherwise achievable within the body of the whipstock itself. In contrast, without a telescoping sleeve, the whipstock body can only provide a limited arcuate path for the jetting assembly, because it is confined by the diameter of the wellbore. That is, in such a limited case, the best that can be achieved is utilizing the entire casing I.D. to construct the complete bend radius for the jetting hose, as was established by the precedent works previously cited. Hence, the telescoping sleeve overcomes this limitation, thereby decreasing the bending moment imposed at any one point in the jetting assembly, thus accommodating hoses with larger I.D.'s. WP's, and MBR requirements, with their commensurately larger deliverables of HHP and SE to the jetting nozzle.
In another aspect, there is provided an apparatus and method for actually extending the whipstock's arc, and hence its ability to accommodate the bending path of a given jetting hose or other flexible conduit of the excavation assembly, beyond the inner diameter of the parent well's casing and/or borehole. This is preferably accomplished by employing a thin walled, curved and generally cylindrical telescopic sleeve that, in running position, resides up in the body of the whipstock, and then, in operating position extends from the body of the whipstock. extends through the casing exit, into or through the cement sheath, and typically into the pay zone itself.
The sleeve will preferably have a generally curvilinear length and arc size that appends and completes the bending path of the jetting hose, or other flexible conduit, initiated within the body of the whipstock itself. The shape, and particularly the diameter and arc length, of the sleeve are such that the sleeve is fully retractable up into the body of the whipstock, so as not to present a protrusion that can hang up while running into or out of a wellbore.
The overall (arc) length of the sleeve or sleeve assembly is preferably such that the sleeve is fully retractable into the whipstock body (while in running position). The diameter(s) of the sleeve segment(s) is/are preferably larger than the outer diameter (O.D.) of the jetting hose, to accommodate the entire length of jetting hose running through it (while in operating position). Further, the sleeve preferably has an outer diameter which is generally equal to or slightly less than the O.D. of the jetting nozzle . . . and less than the I.D. of the mini-lateral borehole generated by the jetting nozzle. To fully extend and complete the arc to be provided for the requisite bending of the jetting hose, the sleeve will preferably fit through the casing exit, and will typically extend even further into the immediate portion of the mini-lateral jetted through the cement sheath surrounding the casing, and preferably even further on out into the formation rock itself. The exact span of this arcuate path will typically be determined, not by the whipstock, but by the minimum bend radius (MBR) of the jetting hose to be employed, in conjunction with the desired trajectory of the UDP in relation to the longitudinal axis of the wellbore.
For discussion purposes herein, it is generally presumed that the desired UDP trajectory is generally perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the parent wellbore. and also generally parallel to the bedding plane of the pay zone. However, other trajectories may be desired. For example, when the longitudinal axis of the wellbore is not parallel to the least principle horizontal stress of the pay zone, yet the desired (final) trajectories of the UDP's in alignment with the maximum principle stress of the pay zone, and parallel to its bedding plane. Specifically, so the respective UDP's will be generated such that the hydraulic fractures emanating from them will be in alignment with the pay zone's maximum principal stress. In this situation, the longitudinal axis of the UDP's generated on one side of the parent wellbore would be at less than 90°, and on the opposite side of the wellbore they would be greater than 90°. This could be accomplished with the same extendible whipstock apparatus, simply by governing the distance the sleeve extends from the whipstock. Similarly, UDP trajectories not parallel to the pay zone's bedding plane could be obtained simply by rotating the extendible whipstock (prior to generating the casing exit) to the desired orientation.
In another aspect, the sleeve can be formed of multiple, concentric (when retracted) sleeve segments in order to increase the arc length for a given application. For example, in open hole application, and/or where a relatively long bending arc is required . . . say, when using an ultra-high pressure jetting hose with a relatively long MBR, a multi-segment telescoping sleeve may be needed or preferred. However, in a cased-hole environment, the more thickness added by multiple concentric segments, the larger the casing exit (and, at least in the near-wellbore region, the jetted mini-lateral's I.D.) required to accommodate them.
In another aspect, there is provided an apparatus for increasing a downhole bend radius of an arcuate bending path for a flexible conduit. The apparatus preferably comprises: (a) a whipstock body having a curved inner channel which defines a proximal portion of the arcuate bending path for the flexible conduit; (b) an arced extension for the curved inner channel of the whipstock body; (c) the arced extension being retractable to a fully retracted position in which a distal end of the arced extension is positioned within the whipstock body; and (d) the arced extension being extendible from the fully retracted position of the arced extension to a fully extended position. When the arced extension is partially extended or in the fully extended position, the arced extension defines a distal portion of the arcuate bending path for the flexible conduit. When the arced extension is in the fully extended position, a proximal end of the arced extension is positioned within the whipstock body and the distal end of the arced extension is positioned outside of the whipstock body.
This apparatus can also comprise: the arced extension including a stop structure; the stop structure of the arced extension abutting a retraction stop structure within the whipstock body when the arced extension is fully retracted; and the stop structure of the arced extension abutting an extension stop structure within the whipstock body when the arced extension is fully extended. In another aspect, the arced extension can be formed of a single arcuate sleeve segment or a plurality of telescoping arcuate sleeve segments. In another aspect, when the arced extension is fully extended, the arcuate bending path for the flexible conduit formed by the curved inner channel of the whipstock body and the arced extension can be an arc in a range of from 70° to 110°. In another aspect, when the arced extension is fully extended, the arcuate bending path for the flexible conduit formed by the curved inner channel of the whipstock body and the arced extension be an arc of about 90° (i.e., 90°±10°).
In another aspect, there is provided an apparatus for forming a lateral borehole in a subsurface formation. The apparatus preferably comprises: (a) a whipstock body having a curved inner channel; (b) an arced extension of the curved inner channel of the whipstock body, the arced extension being (i) retractable to a fully retracted position in which a distal end of the arced extension is positioned within the whipstock body and (ii) extendible along a continuum from the fully retracted position to a fully extended position in which a proximal end of the arced extension is positioned within the whipstock body and the distal end of the arced extension is positioned outside of the whipstock body; (c) a flexible conduit which slidably extends through the curved inner channel of the whipstock body and through the arced extension; and (d) an excavation device positioned on a distal end of the flexible conduit outside of the distal end of the arced extension. The curved inner channel of the whipstock body and the arced extension, when partially or fully extended, form an arcuate bending path for the flexible conduit. By way of example, but not by way of limitation, the flexible conduit can be a flexible jetting hose and the excavation device can be a jetting nozzle.
In another aspect, there is provided a method of increasing a bend radius of an arcuate bending path of a flexible conduit when forming a lateral borehole in a subsurface formation. The method preferably comprises the step (a) of positioning an excavating assembly for the lateral borehole in a cased or non-cased main borehole which extends into and/or through the subsurface formation. The excavating assembly preferably comprises: (i) a whipstock body having a curved inner channel; (ii) an arced extension of the curved inner channel of the whipstock body, the arced extension being in a retracted position in which a distal end of the arced extension is positioned within the whipstock body, (iii) a flexible conduit which slidably extends through the curved inner channel of the whipstock body and through the arced extension, and (iv) an excavation device positioned on a distal end of the flexible conduit outside of the distal end of the arced extension, the excavation device being in a retracted position in which the excavation device is positioned in the main borehole. The method preferably also comprises the steps of (b) extending the excavation device and the flexible conduit from the whipstock body, and initially extending the arced extension from the whipstock body with the excavation device and the flexible conduit so that the curved inner channel of the whipstock body and the arced extension form an arcuate bending path for the flexible conduit, wherein the arced extension is extended with the excavation device and the flexible conduit until a fully extended position of the arced extension is reached in which the arced extension extends into a cased or non-cased wall of the main borehole and, after the fully extended position of the arced extension is reached, (c) extending the excavating device and the flexible conduit from the distal end of the arced extension into the subsurface formation along a substantial linear trajectory to form the lateral borehole.
The ability of the sleeve used in the inventive apparatus to fully and repeatably retract into the Whipstock allows the ultra-deep perforation (“UDP”) tool string to be repositioned within the wellbore to the next desired UDP interval or tools string setting depth, while protecting the nozzle, jetting hose and sleeve from damage during the tool string movement. Each combination of UDP's to be fracked together with a single frac stage . . . i.e., each UDP “cluster” . . . may require one or more UDP's to be created, thereby requiring one or multiple deployments of the jetting assembly and the sleeve. Multiple UDP's at a single interval or tool string setting depth in the well, may require multiple orientations of the whipstock, sleeve, and multiple deployments of the jetting nozzle and hose (the “jetting assembly”) to achieve the desired relative positions for the UDP's at each interval or tool string setting. Multiple orientations are achievable by indexing the Whipstock, either within the well casing itself, or within a mateable Custom Ported Casing Collar (“CPCC”; reference U.S. Patent Application No. 2019-16/246,005, “Ported Casing Collar For Downhole Operations, And Method For Accessing A Formation”, filed Jan. 11, 2019).
If used, a CPCC provides multiple openings that can receive and conduct the jetting assembly and sleeve through the well casing, such that hydraulically jetting through the well casing wall is not required. This reduces the time required to generate each UDP, thereby increasing the efficiency of the UPD-creating operation and corresponding well completion activities. In cases where CPCC's are not installed in the well casing, the tool string's whipstock can be located at any desired wellbore depth, and subsequently rotated to any desired orientation. These capabilities provide for properly spacing and orienting the UDP's relative to one another . . . particularly, to receive and conduct a given stage in a hydraulic fracture treatment. Of course, in these instances, UDP's must typically be jetted through the wellbore's casing. since a pre-existing port for the extendible whipstock sleeve and jetting assembly is not present.
As the jetting assembly advances, the jetting hose moves through the whipstock and beyond the outer surface of the whipstock toward the inner surface of the well casing. The sleeve is preferably sized and designed such that it simultaneously travels distally in sync with that portion of the jetting hose located immediately upstream of the jetting nozzle. In sequence, then, the blast region of high pressure jetting slurry immediately in front of the distal end of the jetting nozzle is building the curved portion of the UDP's mini-borehole cavity, first through the well casing wall, then secondly through the surrounding cement sheath (in the annular region between the wellbore's casing and parent borehole), and finally on out into the near-wellbore rock formation. Once the distal end of the sleeve has reached its maximum travel position in the whipstock as governed by the upset shoulder stop 3930.E arriving at the lower stop ring 3920 (
Accordingly, the sleeve can provide a significantly larger radius of curvature for the jetting hose than that which could be provided within the body of the whipstock itself (
For a typically well-designed radial hydraulic jetting system, this frictional pressure loss component (i.e., losses through the jetting hose) comprises the vast majority of the total frictional pressure loss of the entire system . . . for example, up to 90%. Thus, even small incremental gains in jetting hose I.D. can make very substantive reductions in these losses. That is, reducing hydraulic frictional forces within the jetting hose significantly increases the fluid volume throughput (or pump rate) for a given pressure drop limitation through the entire system; e.g., from the discharge of the surface pressure pumping equipment through the discharge of the jetting nozzle. In a nutshell, reducing the pressure and HHP drops through the jetting hose commensurately places that once wasted energy further downstream in the system as useful energy. Specifically, it provides for a geometric increase in hydraulic horsepower (HHP) and Specific Energy (SE) delivery to the jetting nozzle discharge, which in turn significantly increases the rate of penetration of the jetting assembly through the well casing, well cement, and rock formation. Thus, by increasing the maximum possible rate of penetration with the larger diameter jetting hose, the time required to generate the small diameter bore holes (UDP's) through the casing, well cement and rock formation is reduced, thereby increasing the overall efficiency of the hydraulic jetting operation and the economics of the corresponding oil and/or gas well completion.
Further objects, features, and advantages of the present invention will be apparent to those in the art upon examining the accompanying drawings and upon reading the Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiments.
It should be noted that all of the following
The last graph is
As used herein, the term “extendible whipstock” refers to any device for increasing the bend radius of a flexible conduit deviating device, or “whipstock”.
The term “whipstock” refers to any device for deviating the direction of a flexible conduit in a downhole setting within either a cased wellbore or an (uncased) open hole borehole, e.g., for a hydraulic/abrasive jetting application such that the flexible conduit (as a part of the jetting assembly) intersects the well casing, well cement (if present), and formation.
The term “formation” refers to a subsurface geological strata.
The term “pay zone” refers to a particular formation known to contain hydrocarbons in paying quantities for which a wellbore is inserted and completed. As used herein, part of that completion process involves hydraulically and/or abrasively jetting a mini-lateral borehole (or Ultra Deep Perforation, “UDP”), generally perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the wellbore. Generally, and particularly in unconventional horizontal wells in a pre-hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) application, it is preferred that the longitudinal axis of the UDP's be generally parallel to the plane of maximum principle horizontal stress in the pay zone.
The term “ultra-deep perforation” (“UDP”) refers to the resultant mini-lateral borehole produced by an RHJ operation in a subsurface formation, typically upon exiting a production casing and its surrounding cement sheath in a wellbore, with the borehole being formed in a pay zone. UDP's therefore preclude the need for conventional perforating. For the purposes herein, a UDP is formed as a result of abrasive and/or hydraulic jetting forces erosionally boring through the pay zone with a high pressure jetting fluid or slurry directed through a jetting hose and out a jetting nozzle affixed to the terminal end of the jetting hose. UDP's generally have relatively small diameters, typically 2 inches or less.
As used herein, the term “subsurface” refers to geologic strata occurring below the earth's surface.
The term “borehole” as used herein refers to the excavated void space in the subsurface, typically of circular cross-section and generated by excavation mechanisms; generally by either drilling or jetting. A borehole may have almost any longitudinal azimuth or orientation, and may be up to hundreds (jetting) or more typically thousands or tens of thousands of feet in length (drilling).
As used herein, the term “wellbore” refers to a borehole excavated by drilling and subsequently cased (typically with steel casing) along much if not its entire length. Usually at least 3 or more concentric strings of casing are required to form a wellbore for the production of hydrocarbons. Each casing is typically cemented within the borehole along a significant portion(s) of its length, with the cementing of the larger diameter, shallower strings requiring circulation to surface. As used herein, the term “well” may be used interchangeably with the term “wellbore.” Wellbores are typically classified by the general orientation of the longitudinal axis of the borehole as it penetrates the pay zone: either vertical, horizontal, or directional.
As used herein, a “horizontal wellbore”, or “horizontal well” is a well that has typically drilled vertically to a planned “kick-off” point, at which the trajectory starts to “build angle”, turning the trajectory of the well from a generally vertical to a generally horizontal orientation. From the terminus of the well's vertical section to the beginning of its horizontal section thus forms the “heel” section of the well. A generally horizontal orientation is continued through the horizontal lateral section of the well for many thousands of feet . . . perhaps for a distance approaching almost 4 miles. The terminal portion of the horizontal lateral is referred to as the “toe” section.
The term “jetting fluid” refers to any fluid pumped through a jetting hose and nozzle assembly for the purpose of erosionally boring a lateral borehole from an existing (cased) wellbore or (openhole) borehole. The jetting fluid may or may not be in liquid form. The jetting fluid may or may not contain an abrasive material.
The term “abrasive material” or “abrasives” refers to small, solid particles mixed with or suspended in the jetting fluid to enhance the erosional degradation of the target by the (jetting) fluid (or “slurry”) by adding to it destruction of the target face via the solid impact forces of the abrasive. Targets typically referenced herein are: (1) the pay zone; and/or (2) the cement sheath between the production casing and pay zone; and/or (3) the wall of the production casing at the point of desired casing exit.
The term “jetting slurry” is a jetting fluid that always contains an abrasive material.
The term “jetting hose” refers to a flexible fluid conduit, typically containing multiple reinforcement layers such as spiral or braided wire or braided Kevlar reinforcing a fluid conducting core such as PTFE, and is thus capable of conducting relatively small volumes of fluids at very high or even ultra-high pressures, typically up to thousands or tens of thousands of psi.
As used herein, the “minimum bend radius” (“MBR”) of a jetting hose will be defined as: “ . . . the smallest diameter that a looped hose can achieve without damage and is measured as the distance to the inside edge of the hose (not the center line) when making a 90-degree bend.” [https://www.crossco.com/resources/technical-bulletins-guides/bend-radius-in-hydraulic-hose/] Note this definition presumes the 90-degree bend is occurring in a single plane. As used herein, the term “external bend radius” of a jetting hose will be defined as the distance from the pivot or center point established when a jetting hose follows an arcuate path while making a 90°-turn in a common plane, such that continuation of that same arc beyond 90° would eventually form a perfect circle. The external bend radius is simply the radius measured from the center point to that hypothetically perfect circle formed along the outside edge of the fully looped jetting hose. From that same center point, it is also the distance to the whipstock device's arcuate surface or ramp where the surface of the jetting hose actually contacts the device.
As used herein, the term “bend radius” or “actual bend radius” is simply the difference between the external bend radius and the outer diameter of the jetting hose. It is presumed to always be greater than or equal to the minimum bend radius.
A downhole apparatus and method of enhancing the range of a whipstock in constructing a mini-lateral borehole (or Ultra Deep Perforation, “UDP”) off of a host wellbore (or borehole) by: (1) dynamically locating the trajectory of a high pressure jetting fluid along a predetermined arcuate path; while, (2) concurrently establishing in situ a temporary, rigid, and enlarged bend radius for the flexible jetting fluid conduit. The curved, rigid, and telescopic aspects of the apparatus both support and guide the distal end of the jetting assembly as it erosionally excavates the arcuate path, first through the well casing (or ported casing collar), then through the well's cement sheath, and finally on out into the subsurface formation (typically, the pay zone).
The apparatus then serves to encase the initial, curvilinear portion of the UDP, while establishing the final, linear trajectory for the jetting nozzle as the nozzle disengages from the apparatus and advances on out into the pay zone to construct the remainder of the UDP. At this point of nozzle disengagement, the apparatus is at its final (and typically, fully) extended position, at which it remains while acting as a rigid sleeve serving to establish and maintain the new, expanded bend radius for the remainder of the jetting hose to be fed through it. Upon completing the UDP and retrieving the jetting hose, the proximal end of the jetting nozzle once again abuts to the distal end of the apparatus, pulling it back into the body of the whipstock to its initial, fully retracted position. While retracted, the apparatus on longer protrudes beyond the dimensions of the whipstock's body, and is therefore in a safe running position for the whipstock to be reoriented and/or relocated within the host wellbore, where the jetting of another UDP at the new whipstock location can be initiated.
Ultimately, this apparatus and method for providing an enlarged bend radius available to the flexible conduit (jetting hose) may be the critical determinant of whether erosional excavation of UDP's in a given pay zone is economically successful, or even whether it is even physically possible at all. This is particularly the case with the “tighter”, higher compressive strength unconventional pay zones (including shales) pursued via horizontal drilling in approximately 85% of wells drilled on U.S. land today. As depicted by Graphs 1 and 2, losses of both jetting pressure and hydraulic horsepower are exponentially higher with diminishing jetting hose diameters. These sacrificed quantities of pressure and HHP, otherwise deliverable to the nozzle, may be the difference in erosionally excavating UDP's economically (i.e., with a satisfactory penetration rate) . . . or, if the hose loss reduces the jetting pressure exiting the nozzle to below the critical value of the pay zone's Threshold Pressure, PTh, then no erosional boring can occur at all. (Reference Equation 4.) It is no wonder, then, that in a typical radial hydraulic system (“RHJ”) deployed on coiled tubing, over 90% of the system's pressure and HHP losses occur in the jetting hose.
The critical driver that typically forces operators into smaller I.D. hose selections, thereby imposing these unwanted magnitudes of pressure and HHP losses, is the minimum bend radius (“MBR”) rating of the jetting hose. For applications of jetting hoses at downhole conditions, the MBR is just as critical as the pressure and temperature ratings of the hose. By definition, bending a jetting hose to a radius less than that of its MBR will cause a perturbation to the physical structure the hose itself . . . that is, it will irreversibly damage it, even after re-straightening . . . thus reducing the pressure integrity of the hose. Unfortunately, increasing the jetting hose I.D. to a magnitude that overcomes the otherwise debilitating losses of pressure and HHP almost always brings with it a commensurate upsizing of the MBR requirement as well. And recall, given most RHJ applications call for a jetting path essentially perpendicular to the wellbore, this 90° turn of the jetting hose must be accomplished entirely within the confines of the wellbore's production casing (or, if open hole, borehole). That is, if one relies on existing downhole hose bending technologies, such as a “diverter shoe” or a whipstock. These existing technologies are all identical in one very important aspect. whether they are multi-trip systems run on tubing (diverter shoes), wireline, or even single-trip systems run on coiled tubing or e-coil (whipstocks, such as the precedent work's U.S. Pat. No. 9,976,351 entitled “Downhole Hydraulic Jetting Assembly”). That is, the geometry and configuration of the device applying the bending moment (i.e., as the hose is forced into it, thus shaping its arcuate path) is entirely static. Even though the curvature of the bend may be formed from multiple and/or actuatable components, when once formed it does not change throughout the whole UDP-generating operation. Even the precedent work's mateable whipstock and Custom Ported Casing Collar (“CPCC”; reference U.S. Patent Application No. 2019-16/246,005, “Ported Casing Collar For Downhole Operations, And Method For Accessing A Formation”, filed Jan. 11, 2019), which utilizes curved ports in the inner and outer sleeves of the CPCC to align with the whipstock, thus completing and extending the bend arc for the hose, is static throughout the UDP jetting process.
Quite simply, then, for operators to escape the pressure and HHP restrictions of smaller diameter hoses, what is needed is an apparatus that can provide for an arcuate bending path that is greater than the I.D. of the casing, or in the case of CPCC's, greater than the O.D. of the casing collar. Such a path would need to be formed insitu and dynamically. Specifically, the hose bending path would need to be established immediately behind the jetting nozzle as the borehole is excavated, but ahead of, or at least contemporaneously with the advancement of the very distal end of the jetting hose itself. The established bending path needs to not only extend, but remain established to accommodate the feed of the entire length of jetting hose desired for formation of the UDP. Upon retrieval of the jetting hose and nozzle, the hose bending apparatus must be able to resect back into the whipstock body, as not to impede the whipstock's reorientation and/or depth relocation for jetting of the next UDP. These are the basic design objectives for a dynamic, insitu, and repeatably extending/retracting hose bending device, referenced herein as an “Extendible Whipstock”.
An examination of
This assembly allows an operator to run a jetting hose into the horizontal section 4c of a wellbore 4, and then deploy the jetting hose out of a tubular jetting hose carrier using hydraulic and/or mechanical forces. Beneficially, as depicted in
Because the relative difference in actual bend radius provided by R′ versus R may be inconsequential in providing jetting hose upsizing options, as discussed above.
Before describing these 3-series Figures, note the above-description of “single-segment telescoping sleeve”. A two-segment sleeve is depicted in Figure SB. To avoid complexity, however, only the simplest single-segment case has been presented in the other drawings. As depicted in Figure SB, a sleeve may be comprised of two or more segments, an outer segment 3900 and an inner segment 3950. Again, for a 90° hose bend, a two-segment construction could provide an approximate 30° bend within the body of the whipstock, housing two telescopic segments of like 30° bend, the sum of the three providing the requisite 90° turn. Similarly, three 22.5° telescopic segments could be housed within a whipstock body housing a like bending channel, and so on. Of interest is that the more segments provided, the less bend is required and thus a given whipstock diameter could accommodate a longer segment(s). Notwithstanding, as the number of telescopic segments increases. the concentricity of the segments requires an increasing hose channel diameter within the whipstock to house them.
Similarly, a simple biasing mechanism to extend the sleeve is shown in 3980,
Thus, as shown in
Though for example purposes only, this specific single-sleeve extendible whipstock sleeve 3900 configuration depicted in
As shown in
In order to allow flushing of the
To facilitate entry into the jetted holes in the casing, cement sheath and formation, especially in cases where the jetted holes may be irregularly shaped, the
Perhaps the above can best be observed from the
Like
This fully retracted position 3900.R of the sleeve 3900 should occur due to frictional forces of the jetting hose 1595 as it is retrieved back into the jetting hose carrier of the jetting assembly . . . perhaps with the retrieval of no more length of jetting hose 1595 than that of the arc length of the I.D. of sleeve 3900. Notwithstanding. in that the 1.6 inch O.D. of the sleeve 3900 (shown at 3001D.WE-O1.60) is also the approximate O.D. of the jetting nozzle 1600, the proximal edge of the jetting nozzle 1600 will shoulder the distal end of the sleeve 3900 as the jetting hose 1595 is retrieved back into the jetting hose carrier sub-assembly of the hydraulic jetting apparatus. Thus, if the fully retracted 3900.R position of the sleeve 3900 is not achieved from frictional forces of jetting hose 1595 retrieval, then full retraction 3900.R of the sleeve 3900 must occur from mechanical forces, such as when the distal end of the sleeve 3900 engages the proximal end of the jetting nozzle 1600. Note that when the sleeve's upset shoulder stop 3930 contacts the whipstock's 3000's upper stop ring 3910, the sleeve 3900 can thus be retrieved proximally no further than position 3930.R. Inclusion of a tensiometer, and/or contact sensors, in the hydraulic jetting tool assembly will prevent over-pull of jetting hose 1595 once the upset shoulder stop 3930 of sleeve 3900 has contacted upper stop ring 3910 of whipstock 3000, thus precluding damage to the sleeve 3900, whipstock 3000, jetting hose 1595, or the jetting hose connection to jetting nozzle 1600.
Subsequent to penetration of casing 12. the sleeve continues to guide the jetting nozzle 1600 and jetting hose 1595 to “build angle” towards the desired orthogonal UDP orientation while jetting through the cement sheath 13. Note there is more than just a remote chance that, particularly in a horizontal well 4 completion, cement 13 was not completely circulated and established consistently around casing 12 as shown, and that only an annulus filled with drilling mud exists in a particular portion of the wellbore opposite casing exit W. Here, the sleeve 3900 provides the invaluable function of stabilizing the jetting assembly, such that it does not allow this early part of UDP formation to occur outside its predetermined arcuate course. Perhaps even more valuable, the sleeve in this instance is precluding a destabilized jetting of such a tortuous path that, if the liquid filled annulus between casing 12 and pay zone 3 were large enough, misalignment could damage the jetting hose 1595. and/or the jetting nozzle 1600 could not be retrieved back through casing exit W.
Subsequent to guiding the UDP through cement 13 (or liquid annulus), the sleeve reaches its fully extended position 3900.E as the jetting assembly has penetrated into the pay zone 3, where the distal edge of the sleeve has ‘followed’ the proximal edge of the jetting nozzle 1600 to the sleeve's fully extended position 3900.E, and the sleeve's 3900's Upset Shoulder Stop 3930 is now contacting the whipstock's 3000's Lower Stop Ring 3920 at 3930.E, 3900.E. Thus,
It should be observed here that as seen in
Note that
Lastly,
Thus, the present invention is well adapted to carry out the objects and attain the ends and advantages mentioned above as well as those inherent therein. While presently preferred embodiments have been described for purposes of this disclosure, numerous changes and modifications will be apparent to those in the art. Such changes and modifications are encompassed within this invention as defined by the claims
This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 63/000,969 filed on Mar. 27, 2020 and incorporates said provisional application by reference into this document as if fully set out at this point.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3191697 | Haines | Jun 1965 | A |
4085808 | Kling | Apr 1978 | A |
4256179 | Shillander | Mar 1981 | A |
5291975 | Johnson et al. | Mar 1994 | A |
5413184 | Landers | May 1995 | A |
5419405 | Patton | May 1995 | A |
5853056 | Landers | Dec 1998 | A |
5954131 | Sallwasser | Sep 1999 | A |
6003606 | Moore et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6092601 | Gano et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6125949 | Landers | Oct 2000 | A |
6263984 | Buckman, Sr. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6283230 | Peters | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6378629 | Baird | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6412578 | Baird | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6419020 | Spingath | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6464003 | Bloom et al. | Oct 2002 | B2 |
6467557 | Krueger et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6530439 | Mazorow | Mar 2003 | B2 |
6550553 | Baird | Apr 2003 | B2 |
6578636 | Mazorow et al. | Jun 2003 | B2 |
6629568 | Post | Oct 2003 | B2 |
6668948 | Buckman, Sr. et al. | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6889781 | Mazorow | May 2005 | B2 |
6915853 | Bakke | Jul 2005 | B2 |
6964303 | Mazorow et al. | Nov 2005 | B2 |
6971457 | Baird | Dec 2005 | B2 |
7114583 | Chrisman | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7168491 | Malone et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7185716 | Bloom et al. | Mar 2007 | B2 |
7350577 | Watson | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7357182 | Hunt | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7422059 | Jelsma | Sep 2008 | B2 |
7441595 | Jelsma | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7445127 | Schick | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7540327 | Billingham | Jun 2009 | B2 |
7669672 | Brunet et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7686101 | Belew et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7699107 | Butler et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7886834 | Spencer et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
7971658 | Buckman, Sr. | Jul 2011 | B2 |
8028766 | Moore | Oct 2011 | B2 |
8074744 | Watson | Dec 2011 | B2 |
8196680 | Buckman, Sr. et al. | Jun 2012 | B2 |
8245788 | Garcia et al. | Aug 2012 | B2 |
8245796 | Mock | Aug 2012 | B2 |
8267198 | Buckman, Sr. et al. | Sep 2012 | B2 |
8267199 | Buckman, Sr. et al. | Sep 2012 | B2 |
8307902 | Telfer | Nov 2012 | B2 |
8327746 | Behrmann et al. | Dec 2012 | B2 |
8752651 | Randall et al. | Jun 2014 | B2 |
8833444 | McAfee et al. | Sep 2014 | B2 |
8844636 | Bebak et al. | Sep 2014 | B2 |
8991522 | Randall et al. | Mar 2015 | B2 |
9080388 | Heignen | Jul 2015 | B2 |
9080413 | Winnon | Jul 2015 | B2 |
9267338 | LeBlanc et al. | Feb 2016 | B1 |
9284816 | Radford | Mar 2016 | B2 |
9856700 | Zheng et al. | Jan 2018 | B2 |
9976351 | Randall | May 2018 | B2 |
9988900 | Kampfer et al. | Jun 2018 | B2 |
10113393 | Saponja et al. | Oct 2018 | B2 |
10132154 | Witte et al. | Nov 2018 | B2 |
10151172 | Dallas | Dec 2018 | B1 |
10174573 | Bakke et al. | Jan 2019 | B2 |
10174586 | Symms | Jan 2019 | B2 |
10174595 | Knight et al. | Jan 2019 | B2 |
10215014 | Dawson et al. | Feb 2019 | B2 |
10227825 | Randall | Mar 2019 | B2 |
10227866 | Godager et al. | Mar 2019 | B2 |
10233493 | He et al. | Mar 2019 | B2 |
10240418 | Ruttley | Mar 2019 | B2 |
10309205 | Randall | Jun 2019 | B2 |
20010045282 | Robinson | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010052427 | Eppink et al. | Dec 2001 | A1 |
20020062993 | Billingsley | May 2002 | A1 |
20030108393 | Coenen | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030213590 | Bakke et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20050173123 | Lund et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050279499 | Tarvin et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060169495 | Kolle | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060278393 | Hunt et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070151766 | Butler et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20080073077 | Tunc et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080179061 | McAfee | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20090091202 | Parmeter et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090107678 | Buckman, Sr. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20100243266 | Soby et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20110203847 | Randall et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20110290561 | Randall et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20130087321 | Bartko | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130087323 | Allamon et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130284516 | Prill et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20140054087 | Wang et al. | Feb 2014 | A1 |
20140102801 | Hallundbaek et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
101660391 | Aug 2008 | CN |
Entry |
---|
S.D. Joshi, A Review of Horizontal Well and Drainhole Technology, SPE Paper No. 16,868; presented at the 62nd Annual Technical Conference (Sep. 1987). |
J.H. Olsen, Abrasive Jet Mechanics, Te Fabricator Magazine (Mar. 2005 www.omax.com/images/files/abrasjvejet%20mechanics.pdf. |
M. Kojic, et al., Analysis of the influence of Fluid Flow on Plasticity of Porous Rock Under an Axially Symmetric Punch, SPE Paper No. 4243 (Jun. 1974). |
D.A. Summers, et al., Can Nozzle Design Be Effectively Improved for Drilling Purposes, Energy Technology Conference, Houston, Texas (Nov. 1978). |
Carl Landers and Landers Horizontal Drill Inc v Sideways LLC, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 04-1510, -1538 (Decided Jul. 27, 2005). |
Carrell et al., Report, Lateral Drilling and Completion Technologies for Shallow-Shelf Carbonates of the Red River and Ratcliffe Formations, Williston Basin (Jul. 1997). |
W. Dickinson, et al., Data Acquisition Analysis and Control While Drilling With Horizontal Water Jet Drilling Systems, SPE Paper No. 90-127 (Jun. 1990). |
A.W. Momber, Deformation and Fracture of Rocks Due to High Speed Liquicd Impingement, International J. of Fracture. pp. 683-704, Netherlands (Aug. 2044). |
G.P. Tziallas, et al., Determination of Rock Strength and Deformability of Intact Rocks, EJGE vol. 14 (2009). |
D.A. Summers, et al., Development of a Water Jet Drilling System, 4th International Symposium on Jet Cutting Technology, Canterbury, England (Apr. 1978). |
D.A. Summers, Disintegration of Rock by High Pressure Jets, University of Leeds, Department of Applied Meneral Sciences, Ph.D. Dissertation (May 1968). |
O. Katz, et al., Evaluation of Mechanical Rock Properties Using a Schmidt Hammer, International J. of Rock Mechanics, pp. 723-728 (2000). |
D.A. Summers, Feasibility of Fluid Jet Based Drilling Methods for Drilling Through Unstable Formations, SPE Horizontal Well Technology Conference, Calgary, Alberta (Nov. 2002). |
W.C. Maurer, et al., High Pressure Drilling, Journal of Petroleum Technology, pp. 851-859 (Jul. 1973). |
W. Dickinson, et al., Horizontal Radial Drilling System, Society of Petroleum Engineers No. 13,949; California Regional Meeting, Bakersfield, California (Mar. 1985). |
W.C. Maurer, et al., Hydraulic Jet Drilling, SPE Paper No. 2,434 (1969). |
J.L. Pekarek, et al., Hydraulic Jetting: Some Theoretical and Experimental Results, SPE Paper No. 421, pp. 101-112 (Jun. 1963). |
R. Kovaceviv, Hydraulic Process Parameters, SMU School of Engineering—Website Publication (accessed in 2012) http://lyle.smu.edu/. |
D.A. Summers, et al., HyperVelocity Impact on Rock, AIME's Eleventh Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Berkely, California; Part VI—Chapter 32 (Jun. 1969). |
F.C. Pittman, Investigation of Abrasive Laden Fluid Method for Perforation and Fracture Initiation, SPE Paper No. 1607-G; J. of Petroleum Technology, pp. 489-495 (May 1961). |
P. Buset, A Jet Drilling Tool: Cost Effective Lateral Drilling Technology, SPE Paper No. 68,504; SPE/ICoTA Roundtable, Houston, Texas (Mar. 2001). |
D.A. Summers, et al., Petroleum Applications of Emerging High Pressure Waterjet Technology, SPE Paper No. 26,347, Houston, Texas (Oct. 1993). |
D.A. Summers, et al., Progress in Rock Drilling, Mechanical Engineering (Dec. 1989). |
John H. Olson, Pumping Up the Waterjet Power, pp. 1-5 (Dec. 2007). |
D.A. Summers, Recent Advances in the Use of High Pressure Waterjets in Drilling Applications, Advance Mining Technology Workshop, Colorado School of Mines (Oct. 1995). |
R. Feenstra, et al., Rock Cutting by Jets a Promising Method of Oil Well Drilling, SPE Paper No. 4,923 (Sep. 1973). |
W. Dickinson, et al., Slim Hole Multiple Radials Drilled with Coiled Tubing, SPE Paper No. 23,639; 2nd Latin American Petroleum Engineering Conference, Venzuela (Mar. 1992). |
Smith Services, A Business Unit of Smith International, Inc., Smith International Inc. Trackmaster PLUS Wellbore Departure Systems, Houston, Texas (Apr. 2005). |
D.A. Summers, The Application of Waterjets in a Stressed Rock Environment, Third Conference on Ground COntrol Problems in the Illinois Coal Basin (Aug. 1990). |
P.C. Hagan, et al., The Cuttability of Rock Using a High Pressure Water Jet, School of Mining Engineering, The University of New South Wales (1990). |
D.A. Summers, et al., The Effect of Change in Energy and Momentum Levels on the Rock Removal in Indiana Limestone, Symposium on Jet Cutting Technology, England (Apr. 1972). |
D.A. Summers, et al., The Effect of Stress on Waterjet Performance, 19th Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Lake Tahoe, Nevada (May 1978). |
D.A. Summers, et al., The Penetration of Rock by High Speed Water Jets, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. vol. 6, pp. 249-258 Pergamon Press (1969). |
U.S. Hose Corp., U.S. Hose Corporation Engineering Guide No. 350, Technical Specifications for U.S. Hose's Flexible Hoses, Romeoville, Illinois and Houston, Texas (2006). |
D.A. Summers, et al., Water Jet Cutting of Sedimentary Rock, J. of Petroleum Technology, pp. 797-802 (Jul. 1972). |
D.A. Summers, Water Jet Cutting Related to Jet and Rock Properties, 14th Symposium of Rock Mechanics, Penn State University, University Park, Pennsylvania (Jun. 1972). |
D.A. Summers, et al., Water Jet Penetration into Rock (Nov. 1970). |
D.A. Summers, Waterjet Applications Session Review, 5th Pacific Rim International Conference on Water Jet Technology, New Delhi, India (Feb. 1998). |
Well Enhancement Services, LLC, Radial Jet Enhancement Brochure, The Woodlands, Texas (Jun. 2009). |
Well Enhancement Services, LLC, Radial Jet Enhancement Brochure, The Woodlands, Texas (Jun. 2009) www.wellenhancement.com. |
Halliburton, Hydra Jet Perforating Process Service (4-page brochure setting forth the Hydra-Jet Perforating Process Service (Sep. 2006) www.hlliburton.com. |
TIW Corporation, Abrasive Jet Horizontal Drill, A Pearce Industries Company located in Houston, Texas; procedures for the TIW Abrasive Jet Horizontal Drill. |
Vortech Oilfield Tools, LP, Vortech Oilfield Tools, www.Vortech-Inc.com; located in Midland, Texas; questions and answers about Vortech tools (publication date unknown). |
S.J. Leach, et al., Application of High Speed Liquid Jets to Cutting; vol. 260, plate 60 (1996). |
W.C. Cooley, Correlation of Data on Erosion and Breakage of Rock by High Pressure Water Jets; The 12th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Missouri (Nov. 1970). |
T.J. Labus, Energy Requirements for Rock Penetration by Water Jets; 3rd Int. Symposium on Jet Cutting Technology, BHRA Fluid Engineering, Cranfield, Bedford, England (1976). |
D.A. Summers, et al., Water Jet Drilling in Sandstone and Granite; Proceedings from the 18th Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Keystone, Colorado (May 1997). |
G.Rehbinder, A Theory About Cutting Rock With a Water Jet; J. of Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, vol. 12/3-4, (Mar. 1980). |
W.C. Maurer, Advanced Drilling Techniques, pp. 229-301; Petroleum Publishing Company (1980). |
M. Hashish, Experimental Studies of Cutting with Abrasive Waterjets; 2nd U.S. Waterjet Conference, University of Missouri-Rolla (May 1983). |
L.M. Ford, Waterjet Assisted Mining Tools What Type Assistance and What Type Mining Machine?, Energy Citations Database (1983); Abstract Only. |
J.J. Koelee, A Comparison of Water Jet Abrasive Jet and Rotary Diamond Drilling in Hard Rock; Tempress Technologies, Oil and Gas Journal, vol. 96 (1999). |
A.W. Momber, et al., An Energy Balance of High Speed Abrasive Water Jet Erosion; Institution of Mechnical Enineers, vol. 213 Part J; pp. 463-473 (Dec. 1998). |
H. Orbanic, et al., An Instrument for Measuring Abrasive WaterJet Diameter; International J. of Machine Tools & Manufacture, #49; pp. 843-849 (May 2009). |
D.A. Summers, et al., Abrasive Jet Drilling: A New Technology; 30th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Morgantown, West Virginia (Jun. 1989). |
Michael J. Mayerhofer, SRV Proves Key in Shales for Correlating Stimulation and Well Performance; Oil & Gas Reporter, pp. 81-89 (Dec. 2010). |
Buckman Jet Drilling presentation, ICoTA Lunch, Houston, Texas (Aug. 2013). |
W. Dickinson, et al., Coiled-Tubing Radials Placed by Water-Jet Drilling, SPE Paper No. 26,348, Houston, Texas (Oct. 1993). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for PCT/US2016/015771 dated Jun. 3, 2016. |
PCT International Application PCT/US2018/0596987, Publication No. WO 2019083922, Published May 9, 2019. |
D.A. Summers et al., Comparison of Methods Available for the Determination of Surface Energy, 12th Symposium or Rock Mechanics, Univ. of Missouri-Rolla (Nov. 1970). |
PCT International Application PCT/US2008/080631, Publication No. WO 2009/055381, Published Apr. 30, 2009. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
63000969 | Mar 2020 | US |