The present disclosure relates to a wellbore tool for gauging a wellbore and sampling particles in the wellbore.
Gauge cutters are commonly used in petroleum industry for ensuring accessibility of tubing/casing/liner prior to running any other sub-surface tools inside the well. A gauge cutter is a tool with a round, open-ended bottom which is milled to an accurate size. Large openings above the bottom of the tool allow for fluid bypass while running in the hole. Often a gauge ring will be the first tool run on a slickline operation. A gauge cutter can also be used to remove light paraffin that may have built up in the casing and drift runs. A sand bailer can be used to sample or remove paraffin wax, mechanical debris, formation sand, and/or scale.
In certain aspects, a wellbore gauge cutter apparatus includes a sampling body defining a central recess extending from an inlet at a first end of the sampling body to an outlet at a second end of the sampling body. The wellbore gauge cutter apparatus also includes a gauge cutter connected to the sampling body. The gauge cutter is configured to dislodge particles from an inner wall of a wellbore. The sampling body has an inner wall defining the central recess and a hollow cylindrical divider having a central aperture. The hollow cylindrical divider is arranged concentrically within the central recess of the sampling body. The sampling body also includes a first flow path defined in the central aperture of the hollow cylindrical divider, a second flow path defined between an outer wall of the hollow cylindrical divider and the inner wall of the sampling body, and a fluid permeable screen arranged in either a first flow path or the second flow path. The fluid permeable screen is configured to collect a portion the particles dislodged by the gauge cutter.
In some cases, the first flow path and the second flow path extend from the inlet to the outlet.
In some embodiments, a shape of the gauge cutter and the shape of the sampling body match.
In some apparatuses, the first and second flow path of the sampling body are merged between the inlet and an uphole end of the hollow cylindrical divider.
In some cases, the first flow path is larger than the second flow path, wherein the screen is arranged in the second flow path.
In some embodiments, the second flow path of the sampling body is larger than the first flow path of the sampling body. The fluid permeable screen may be arranged in the first flow path.
In some apparatuses, the outlet of the sampling body is fluidly connected with an inlet of the gauge cutter.
In some embodiments, the portion of the particles is 100 grams by weight.
Some fluid permeable screens are removable from the sampling body.
In certain aspects, a wellbore gauge cutter apparatus includes an uphole end, a downhole end, and a cylindrical body. The cylindrical body defines a central recess extending from a first end of the cylindrical body to a second end of the cylindrical body. The wellbore gauge cutter apparatus also includes a cutter blade connected to the second end of the cylindrical body and a sample collector permeable to fluids. The sample collector is configured to retain particles. The sample collector arranged in the central recess of the cylindrical body. The central recess of the cylindrical body has a first cross-section having a first area, wherein the sample collector has a second-cross section having a second area, wherein the second area is less than the first area.
In some cases, the cylindrical body includes a first beam extending from first end of the cylindrical body to a connector. The cylindrical body can include a second beam extending from first end of the cylindrical body to a connector. In some cases, the first beam and second beam define an inlet and the inlet is in fluid communication the central recess of the cylindrical body.
Some sample collectors have a volume of about 0.3 liters to about 1 liter.
The sampling collector can include a membrane permeable to fluids. In some cases, the sampling collector is releasable from the cylindrical body. Some sample collectors are annularly shaped. In some embodiments, the first cross-section is circular. The cutter blade can be a gauge cutter.
In certain aspects, a method includes cutting, by a gauge cutter during a downhole motion of a gauge cutter apparatus through a casing of a wellbore, a material from internal walls of the casing of the wellbore such that particles of the material are suspended in fluid. The method also includes, after cutting the material from the internal walls, separating, by sampling body mechanically connected to the gauge cutter during an uphole motion of the gauge cutter apparatus through the casing of the wellbore, the fluid with the suspended particles in the sampling body into a first flow path of the sampling body or a second flow path of the sampling body. A majority of the fluid entering the sampling body is separated into the first flow path of the sampling body. The method also includes collecting a sample of the particles with a sample collector arranged in the second flow path of the sampling body.
Some methods include removing the sample collector from the sampling body to access the collected particles.
In some cases, the method includes analyzing the particles using an x-ray diffraction test, an acid test, or both an x-ray diffraction test and an acid test.
In some embodiments, the first and second flow paths extend to an outlet of the gauge cutter apparatus.
The wellbore gauge cutting apparatus samples the debris and particles dislodged by the wellbore gauge cutter apparatus in a single trip. The wellbore gauge cutter apparatus may increase the speed of cutting and debris sampling and may reduce errors by eliminating the need to switch tools between runs. Further, the sampling body protects the collected sample during cutting and transportation to the surface so that the samples may be accurately analyzed. Analyzing the sample can also determine the chemical compositions and natures of the particle. A fit-for-purpose removal well intervention can be designed around the chemical composition.
The details of one or more implementations are set forth in the accompanying drawings and the description below. Other features, objects, and advantages will be apparent from the description and drawings, and from the claims.
Like reference symbols in the various drawings indicate like elements.
The gauge cutter apparatus may be used in wellbores to dislodge, scrape, or clean debris from the inner walls of a wellbore casing, or other tubular structure in the wellbore. The apparatus includes a sampling body with sampling collectors or screens that are permeable to fluids. The sampling collectors retain a portion of the particles suspended in the fluid for later analysis at the surface. In use, the gauge cutter apparatus undergoes running-in-hole (RIH) operation to dislodge debris from an internal wall of the casing. The debris, in the form of particles, is suspended in a fluid in the casing. The wellbore gauge cutter apparatus then undergoes pulling out of hole (POOH) operation in which a portion of the fluid in the casing flows through the sample collector or screen. The other portion of the fluid with suspended particles in the casing flows through the gauge cutter apparatus but does not interact with the sampling collector or screen. At the surface, the sampling collector can be separated from the sampling body to access the collected sample for further analysis.
The wellbore gauge cutter apparatus samples the debris and particles dislodged by the wellbore gauge cutter apparatus in a single trip. The gauge cutter apparatus may increase the speed of cutting and debris sampling and may reduce errors by eliminating the need to switch tools between runs. Further, the sampling body protects the collected sample during cutting and transportation to the surface so that the samples may be accurately analyzed. In some instances, the sampling body holds the collected particles in order of dislodgment, so that the sample deepest in the sample collector can be inferred to have been collected farthest from the surface. In other instances the sample deepest the sample collected can be inferred to have been collected nearest to the surface. Knowing the axial position of collected particles relative to the axial position of other collected particles can be beneficial in determining the type and severity of the debris formed on the casing. Analyzing the sample can also determine the chemical compositions and natures of the particle. A fit-for-purpose removal well intervention can be designed around the chemical composition and, if applicable, the positions of the particles relative to the wellbore.
The wellbore gauge cutter apparatus 100 further includes a sample collector 116 (e.g., a screen) arranged at an axial position in the central recess 104 of the sampling body 102. The sample collector 116 is arranged at the outlet 110 of the central recess 104, however, other sample collectors may be arranged at the inlet of the sample body, or at any other location in the central recess between the inlet of the sampling body and the outlet of the sampling body. The sample collector 116 is permeable to fluids and is configured to retain particles, solids, and/or debris. The sample collector can be or include a screen, (fluid) divider, permeable partition, flexible membrane, rigid membrane, filter, fabric mesh, wire mesh, or a combination thereof. The sample collector can be entirely rigid, entirely flexible, or both rigid and flexible at different portions of the sample collector. In some instances, the sample collector is made of an elastic, stretchable material. The sample collector can be made of plastic, metal, fabric, polymer, elastomers, or combinations thereof.
The sample collector 116 is annularly shaped such that an opening 118 is defined in the center of the sample collector 116 and a base 120 connects or mounts the sample collector 116 to the inner wall 114. The sample collector 116 includes prongs 122 separated by slots 124, that extend from the base 120 and terminate at the opening 118. The slots 124 are open spaces though which fluid, and particle of smaller than a predetermined size, may flow. The width of the slot is about 0.1 mm to about 15 mm (e.g., 0.5 mm to about 10 mm). The width of the slots may be adjusted to account for a larger or a smaller particle size. The prongs 122 retain particles larger than the width of the slots 124 when fluid containing particles flows through the sample collector 116. The sample collector 116 retains particles larger than 1 mm, however, the sample collector can be formed to retain particle sized from at least 0.1 mm to 12 mm. The sample collector 116 can be disconnected from the inner wall 114 of the central recess 104, and removed from the sampling body 102 via the outlet of the sampling body 102, described further with reference to
The wellbore gauge cutter apparatus 100 further includes a gauge cutter (cutting blade) 126 configured to dislodge debris from an internal wall of a wellbore. The gauge cutter extends (downhole) from on the second end 112 of the sampling body 102 so that a free end 128 of the gauge cutter, scrapes, cuts, or scours the inner wall of the wellbore. The gauge cutter 126 defines an aperture 129 that extends through the gauge cutter 126. The aperture 129 and the outlet 110 are aligned such that the aperture 129 and outlet 110 are in fluid communication. In use, the dislodged debris is suspended in fluid in the form of debris particles. A portion of the particles can be collected by the sample collector 116. Some gauge cutters are integrally formed with the sampling body or are connected to the sampling body (e.g., by mounting or releasable attachment).
The gauge cutter 126 is the same shape and size as the sampling body 102, such that both are cylindrically shaped and have the same diameter. Some gauge cutters are shaped differently from the sampling body, in that the gauge cutter may have a larger diameter or may mirror the shape of the well bore casing to form a close fit with the casing. In some instances, the gauge cutter is detachable from the second end of the sampling body and replaceable by a different gauge cutter. The connection between the gauge cutter and the sampling body may be a snap fit connection, magnetic connection, bolted connection, tongue and groove connection, or any other mechanical connection known in the art. Such an embodiment is described in further detail with reference to
The wellbore gauge cutter apparatus 100 includes a connector 130 that connects the wellbore gauge cutter apparatus 100 to a slick line, wireline, or coiled tubing. A first beam 132 and a second beam 134 of the sampling body 102 arranged at the first end 108 of the sampling body 102 each extend to the connector 130. The beams 132, 134 at least partially define the inlet 106 of the sampling body 102. The inlet 106 formed by the beams 132, 134 is in fluid communication with aperture 129 of the gauge cutter 126 via the outlet 110 defined at the second end 112 of the sampling body 102 and the central recess 104.
The sampling body 102 has an external diameter dbo (
The cross sectional areas Asc, Acr of the sample collector 116 and the central recess 104 are taken at the same axial location in the central recess 104. The cross sectional area Asc of the sample collector 116 is less than the cross sectional area Acr of the central recess 104 (e.g., less than half), because the sample collector 116 only extends into a part of the central recess 104, not across the entire central recess 104. The ratio of the cross sectional area Asc of the sample collector 116 to the cross sectional area Acr of the central recess 104 can be, for example, 1:8, 1:6, 1:4, 1:3, 1:2, 2:3, 3:4, 4:5, 5:6, 6:7, 7:8, 8:9, or 9:10.
This configuration forms two flow paths in the central recess 104. A first flow path 136 (
The fluid and particles 142b in the first flow path 136 enter the inlet 106, bypass the sample collector 116, and exit the outlet 110. The fluid and particles 142b in the first flow path 136 do not interact with the sample collector 116. The fluid and particles 142b in the second flow path 138 enter the inlet 106 and are separated by the sample collector 116. Particles 142b of a minimum size are retained in the sample collector 116. After separation (e.g., sampling, filtering), the fluid and particles 142 less than the minimum particle size of the sample collector 116 exit the outlet 110.
In some instances first portion of the fluid is larger than the second portion of the fluid, so that the first flow path is larger than the second flow path. In some instances, the second portion of the fluid is larger than the first portion of the fluid, so that the second flow path is larger than the first flow path. Regardless, as the sample collector 116 holds more particles 142b less fluid can flow through the second flow path 138. As a result, over time, the second portion of the fluid can decrease while the first portion of the fluid increases. In some cases, when the sample collector is full, the all fluid in the central recess flows through the first flow path.
The sample collector 116 retains a small portion of the total number or particles present in the fluid, for example a particle weight of at least 100 grams (e.g. 50 grams to 1000 grams).
The method includes connecting the wellbore gauge cutter apparatus 100 to a slickline 140 and inserting the wellbore gauge cutter apparatus 100 into a wellbore casing 146 containing fluid and debris on the internal wall 144 of the casing 146. Next, the method 200 includes moving the gauge cutter 126 during a downhole motion of the wellbore gauge cutter apparatus 100 through the casing 146 of the wellbore, thereby cutting debris 142a (material) from the internal walls 144 of the casing 146 of the wellbore. The particles 142b of the debris (material) 142a are suspended in fluid. (Step 202). The wellbore gauge cutter apparatus 100 continues cutting debris 142a from the internal walls 144 of the casing 146. The downhole cutting motion eventually cuts the entire casing, or predetermined length of debris (material) 142a from the casing 146.
After cutting the debris (material) 142a from the internal walls 144, the wellbore gauge cutter apparatus 100 is moved uphole thereby sampling a portion of the particles 142b in the fluid. The method includes moving the gauge cutter apparatus 100 uphole, thereby separating, by the sampling collector 116 mechanically connected to the gauge cutter 126, the fluid with the suspended particles 142b in the sampling body 102 of the wellbore gauge cutter apparatus 100 into a first flow path 136 of the sampling body 102 or a second flow path 138 of the sampling body 102. In some cases, a majority of the fluid entering the sampling body 102 is separated into the first flow path 136 of the sampling body 102. (Step 204).
Next, the wellbore gauge cutter apparatus 100 collects a sample of the particles 142b with the sampling collector 116 (screen or membrane) arranged in the second flow path 138 of the sampling body 102. (Step 206).
The wellbore gauge cutter apparatus 100 continues to move uphole as the sampling collector 116 fills with particle 142b. The sample collector 116 may fill to a maximum volume, at which time, no or small amounts of fluid can flow in the second flow path 138. When the sample collector 116 is full, a majority (or all) of the fluid in the sampling body 102 flows through the first flow path 136.
The wellbore gauge cutter apparatus 100 reaches the surface and may be taken to a lab or analysis station to analyze the particles 142b collected in the sample collector 116. In these settings, the sampling body 102 is disconnected from the sample collector 116 and sample collector (e.g., a membrane) is removed from the sampling body to access the collected particles 142. The method further includes analyzing the particles using X-ray Diffraction (XRD) and/or an acid test.
The first flow path 156 is defined in the central aperture 152c of the sample collector 152. The second flow path 158 is defined between the inner wall 114 of the sampling body 102 and an outer wall of the cylindrical divider 152a. The first and second flow paths 156, 158 extend from the inlet 106 to the outlet 110 of the sampling body 102.
The gauge cutter 151 of the wellbore gauge cutter apparatus 100 is substantially similar to gauge cutter 126, however, the gauge cutter 151 includes a sample inlet 154a that extends to a second sample collector 154 arranged in gauge cutter 151. In this configuration, the wellbore gauge cutter apparatus 100 collects samples when performing RIH and POOH operations (moving downhole and uphole). The gauge cutter 151 also includes a sample outlet 154b. During operation the sample outlet 154b is covered by the sampling body 102. In some cases, the sample outlet is exposed during operation.
In
The sample collector 180 has a first (uphole) portion 190, a second portion 192, and a third (downhole) portion 194. The second portion 192 extends between the first portion 190 and the third portion 194. The first apertures 184 are arranged in the first portion 190. The second apertures 186 are arranged in the second portion 192. The third apertures 188 are arranged in the third portion 194. In this configuration, the second and third portions 192, 194 of the sample collector 180 hold smaller particles than the first portion 190 of the sample collector 180, thereby forming a gradient filter. The sample collector 180 with a gradient filter is able to retain a range of particle sizes, e.g., large particles and small particles. As the sample collector 180 fills with particles, the minimum particle size changes. Therefore, small and large particles may initially be sampled, however, as the volume of particles in the sample collector 180 increases, only large particles are retained and smaller particles may flow through sample collector 180.
In the sample collector 180, the first apertures 184 are circular holes, the second apertures are circular holes, and the third apertures are slots, however, in other sample collectors the first, second, and third apertures may be shaped differently. In some sample collectors, the first, second, and third apertures are the same shape. In some sample collectors, the first, second, and third apertures are each different shapes.
In use, fluid and particles flow through the first flow path in a central aperture 198 of the sample collector 180 or flow through a second flow path. The fluid and particle flowing in the second flow path interacts with the sample collector 180. First, the third portion 194 of the sample collector 180 filters the fluid and particles, retaining only particles that are larger than the width of the third apertures 188. As more particles are gathered, the third portion 194 of the sample collector 180 fills. The fluid and particles then flow through the second apertures 186, so that the sample collector retains only particles larger than the width of the second apertures 186. As more particles are gathered, the second portion 192 of the sample collector 180 fills. The widths of the second and third apertures 186, 188 are equal, therefore, the minimum retained particle size of the second and third portions 192, 194 are the same.
Once the second portion 192 is filled, the fluid and particles then flow through the first apertures 184, so that the sample collector retains only particles larger than the width of the first apertures 184. The width of the first apertures 188 is larger than the second and third apertures 186, 188, therefore, the minimum retained particle size in the first portion is larger than the minimum retained particle size of the second and third portions 192, 194.
The gauge cutter apparatus is removed, the sample collector 180 is retrieved and the collected particles are examined.
While the sample collector 180 has been described as having apertures that decrease in width from the first portion of the sample collector to the third portion of the sample collector, the apertures may also increase in width the first portion of the sample collector to the third portion of the sample collector. Some sample collectors include two portions. Some sample collectors include more than three portions, for example, 4, 5, or 6 portions, each with apertures of a specified width.
In some sample collectors, the first, second, and third portions are made of different material, for example, the third portion may be a rigid membrane, the second portion may be a flexible fabric, and the first portion may be a polymer membrane. In some embodiments, the first, second, and third portions are releasably attached to each other, so that the sample collector may be altered to fit different wellbores or particle types.
A number of embodiments have been described. Nevertheless, it will be understood that various modifications may be made without departing from the spirit and scope of the disclosure. Accordingly, other embodiments are within the scope of the following claims.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
381374 | Hine | Apr 1888 | A |
774519 | Greenaway | Nov 1904 | A |
2368424 | Reistle | Jan 1945 | A |
2782857 | Clark et al. | Feb 1957 | A |
2784787 | Matthews et al. | Mar 1957 | A |
2890752 | Cron et al. | Jun 1959 | A |
3093192 | Allen | Jun 1963 | A |
3228470 | Papaila | Jan 1966 | A |
3244230 | Sharp | Apr 1966 | A |
3285778 | Hauk | Nov 1966 | A |
3369605 | Donaldson et al. | Feb 1968 | A |
3386514 | Weber | Jun 1968 | A |
3497011 | Weber et al. | Feb 1970 | A |
3601197 | Ayers et al. | Aug 1971 | A |
3656550 | Wagner, Jr. et al. | Apr 1972 | A |
3695356 | Argabright et al. | Oct 1972 | A |
3866682 | Jones et al. | Feb 1975 | A |
3882937 | Robinson | May 1975 | A |
3937283 | Blauer et al. | Feb 1976 | A |
3980136 | Plummer et al. | Sep 1976 | A |
4044833 | Volz | Aug 1977 | A |
4059155 | Greer | Nov 1977 | A |
4106562 | Barnes et al. | Aug 1978 | A |
4157116 | Coulter | Jun 1979 | A |
4216829 | Murphy | Aug 1980 | A |
4340405 | Steyert | Jul 1982 | A |
4476932 | Emery | Oct 1984 | A |
4493875 | Beck et al. | Jan 1985 | A |
4532992 | Coenen et al. | Aug 1985 | A |
4660643 | Perkins | Apr 1987 | A |
4705113 | Perkins | Nov 1987 | A |
4836284 | Tinker | Jun 1989 | A |
4846277 | Khalil et al. | Jul 1989 | A |
5018578 | El Rabaa et al. | May 1991 | A |
5069283 | Mack | Dec 1991 | A |
5394339 | Jones | Feb 1995 | A |
5394942 | Catania | Mar 1995 | A |
5529123 | Carpenter et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
5604184 | Ellis et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
5613555 | Sorem et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
5912219 | Carrie et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
6032539 | Liu | Mar 2000 | A |
6207620 | Gonzalez et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6250387 | Carmichael et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6263970 | Blanchet | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6347675 | Kolle | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6419730 | Chavez | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6585046 | Neuroth et al. | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6729409 | Gupta et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6766856 | McGee | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6776231 | Allen | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6776235 | England | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6883605 | Arceneaux et al. | Apr 2005 | B2 |
6988552 | Wilson et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
7001872 | Pyecroft et al. | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7044220 | Nguyen et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7063150 | Slabaugh et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7134497 | Chatterji et al. | Nov 2006 | B1 |
7210528 | Brannon et al. | May 2007 | B1 |
7252146 | Slabaugh et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7255169 | van Batenburg et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7281580 | Parker et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7281581 | Nyuyen et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7334635 | Nguyen | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7334636 | Nguyen | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7422060 | Hammami et al. | Sep 2008 | B2 |
7424911 | McCarthy et al. | Sep 2008 | B2 |
7426961 | Stephenson et al. | Sep 2008 | B2 |
7434623 | Von Gynz-Rekowski | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7451812 | Cooper et al. | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7472751 | Brannon et al. | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7516787 | Kaminsky | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7571767 | Parker et al. | Aug 2009 | B2 |
7581590 | Lesko et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7610962 | Fowler | Nov 2009 | B2 |
7647971 | Kaminsky | Jan 2010 | B2 |
7677317 | Wilson | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7735548 | Cherewyk | Jun 2010 | B2 |
7767628 | Kippie et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7803740 | Bicerano et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7861772 | Blair | Jan 2011 | B2 |
7918277 | Brannon et al. | Apr 2011 | B2 |
8002038 | Wilson | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8006760 | Fleming et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8066068 | Lesko et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
8100190 | Weaver | Jan 2012 | B2 |
8104537 | Kaminsky | Jan 2012 | B2 |
8119576 | Reyes et al. | Feb 2012 | B2 |
8127850 | Brannon et al. | Mar 2012 | B2 |
8205675 | Brannon et al. | Jun 2012 | B2 |
8408305 | Brannon et al. | Apr 2013 | B2 |
8490700 | Lesko et al. | Jul 2013 | B2 |
8584755 | Willberg et al. | Nov 2013 | B2 |
8636065 | Lesko et al. | Jan 2014 | B2 |
8727008 | Krpec | May 2014 | B2 |
8757259 | Lesko et al. | Jun 2014 | B2 |
8763699 | Medvedev et al. | Jul 2014 | B2 |
8936083 | Nguyen | Jan 2015 | B2 |
8985213 | Saini et al. | Mar 2015 | B2 |
9080440 | Panga et al. | Jul 2015 | B2 |
9085727 | Litvinets et al. | Jul 2015 | B2 |
9095799 | Packard | Aug 2015 | B1 |
9097094 | Frost | Aug 2015 | B1 |
9109429 | Xu et al. | Aug 2015 | B2 |
9114332 | Liu | Aug 2015 | B1 |
9181789 | Nevison | Nov 2015 | B2 |
9328282 | Li | May 2016 | B2 |
9447673 | Medvedev et al. | Sep 2016 | B2 |
9523268 | Potapenko et al. | Dec 2016 | B2 |
9670764 | Lesko et al. | Jun 2017 | B2 |
9725639 | Vo et al. | Aug 2017 | B2 |
9725645 | Monastiriotis et al. | Aug 2017 | B2 |
9757796 | Sherman et al. | Sep 2017 | B2 |
9777562 | Lastra et al. | Oct 2017 | B2 |
9816365 | Nguyen et al. | Nov 2017 | B2 |
9845670 | Surjaatmadja et al. | Dec 2017 | B2 |
9863230 | Litvinets et al. | Jan 2018 | B2 |
9863231 | Hull | Jan 2018 | B2 |
9902898 | Nelson et al. | Feb 2018 | B2 |
9903010 | Doud et al. | Feb 2018 | B2 |
9909404 | Hwang et al. | Mar 2018 | B2 |
9945220 | Saini et al. | Apr 2018 | B2 |
9976381 | Martin et al. | May 2018 | B2 |
9995125 | Madasu et al. | Jun 2018 | B2 |
10001769 | Huang et al. | Jun 2018 | B2 |
10012054 | Ciglenec | Jul 2018 | B2 |
10030495 | Litvinets et al. | Jul 2018 | B2 |
10047281 | Nguyen et al. | Aug 2018 | B2 |
10077396 | Nguyen et al. | Sep 2018 | B2 |
10087364 | Kaufman et al. | Oct 2018 | B2 |
10100245 | Bulekbay et al. | Oct 2018 | B1 |
10208239 | Ballard | Feb 2019 | B2 |
10352125 | Frazier | Jul 2019 | B2 |
10421897 | Skiba et al. | Sep 2019 | B2 |
10450839 | Bulekbay et al. | Oct 2019 | B2 |
10508517 | Bulekbay et al. | Dec 2019 | B2 |
10550314 | Liang et al. | Feb 2020 | B2 |
10655443 | Gomma et al. | May 2020 | B2 |
10836956 | Bulekbay et al. | Nov 2020 | B2 |
10858578 | Bulekbay et al. | Dec 2020 | B2 |
10883042 | Bulekbay | Jan 2021 | B2 |
20020043507 | McCulloch | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20040173244 | Strothoff et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20050097911 | Revellat | May 2005 | A1 |
20050126784 | Dalton | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050137094 | Weaver et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050194147 | Metcalf et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20060035808 | Ahmed et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060073980 | Brannon et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060144619 | Storm | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060157249 | Reynolds | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20070012437 | Clingman et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070215355 | Shapovalov | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20080135242 | Lesko | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080149329 | Cooper | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080153718 | Heidenfelder et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080223579 | Goodwin | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20090044945 | Willberg et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090151944 | Fuller et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090298720 | Nguyen et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100043823 | Lee | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100282468 | Willberg et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100323933 | Fuller | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20120018143 | Lembcke | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120097392 | Reyes et al. | Apr 2012 | A1 |
20120112546 | Culver | May 2012 | A1 |
20120118571 | Zhou | May 2012 | A1 |
20120125618 | Willberg | May 2012 | A1 |
20120247764 | Panga | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120305247 | Chen et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20130032549 | Brown et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
20130161003 | Mikhailovich et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20130260649 | Thomson | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130312977 | Lembcke | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20130341027 | Xu et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20140000899 | Nevison | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20140131040 | Panga | May 2014 | A9 |
20140144633 | Nguyen | May 2014 | A1 |
20140144634 | Nguyen | May 2014 | A1 |
20140144635 | Nguyen | May 2014 | A1 |
20140290943 | Ladva | Oct 2014 | A1 |
20140296113 | Reyes | Oct 2014 | A1 |
20140352954 | Lakhtychkin et al. | Dec 2014 | A1 |
20150047846 | Oort | Feb 2015 | A1 |
20150071750 | Foster | Mar 2015 | A1 |
20150083420 | Gupta et al. | Mar 2015 | A1 |
20150211346 | Potapenko | Jul 2015 | A1 |
20150259593 | Kaufman et al. | Sep 2015 | A1 |
20150369028 | Potapenko | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20160153274 | Hull et al. | Jun 2016 | A1 |
20160208591 | Weaver et al. | Jul 2016 | A1 |
20160215604 | Potapenko et al. | Jul 2016 | A1 |
20160319189 | Dusterhoft | Nov 2016 | A1 |
20160347994 | Purdy et al. | Dec 2016 | A1 |
20170066962 | Ravi et al. | Mar 2017 | A1 |
20170121593 | Pantsurkin | May 2017 | A1 |
20170138190 | Elkatatny et al. | May 2017 | A1 |
20180202278 | Nelson et al. | Jul 2018 | A1 |
20180230361 | Foster | Aug 2018 | A1 |
20180244981 | Panga et al. | Aug 2018 | A1 |
20180328156 | Slater | Nov 2018 | A1 |
20180334612 | Bulekbay et al. | Nov 2018 | A1 |
20190055818 | Bulekbay | Feb 2019 | A1 |
20190264095 | Qu et al. | Aug 2019 | A1 |
20190323320 | Bulekbay et al. | Oct 2019 | A1 |
20190345377 | Haque et al. | Nov 2019 | A1 |
20200003053 | Pelletier | Jan 2020 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2013206729 | Apr 2015 | AU |
104727799 | Jun 2015 | CN |
102777138 | Jan 2016 | CN |
306546 | Mar 1989 | EP |
2920435 | Aug 2007 | FR |
239998 | Sep 1925 | GB |
2063840 | Jun 1981 | GB |
WO 1992019838 | Nov 1992 | WO |
WO 2006076330 | Jul 2006 | WO |
WO 2006108161 | Oct 2006 | WO |
WO 2016108161 | Oct 2006 | WO |
WO 2009018536 | Feb 2009 | WO |
WO 2010026553 | Mar 2010 | WO |
WO 2015012818 | Jan 2015 | WO |
WO 2015071750 | May 2015 | WO |
WO 2016032578 | Mar 2016 | WO |
WO 2017040553 | Mar 2017 | WO |
WO 2017164878 | Sep 2017 | WO |
WO 2018106121 | Jun 2018 | WO |
Entry |
---|
PCT International Search Report and Written Opinion in International Appln. No. PCT/US2022/011414, dated Apr. 7, 2022, 14 pages. |
“Echo Dissolvable Fracturing Plug,” EchoSeries, Dissolvable Fracturing Plugs, Gryphon Oilfield Solutions, Aug. 2018, 1 page. |
“Terv Alloy Degradable Magnesium Alloys,” Terves Engineered Response, Engineered for Enhanced Completion Efficiency, Feb. 2018, 8 pages. |
Alipour-Kivi et al., “Automated Liquid Unloading in Low-Pressure Gas Wells Using Intermittent and Distributed Heating of Wellbore Fluid,” SPE 100650, Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), presented at the SPE Western Regional/AAPG Pacific Section/GSA Cordilleran Section Joint Meeting, 2006, 6 pages. |
Ansari et al., “Innovative Planning and Remediation Techniques for Restoring the Well Integrity by Curing High Annulus-B Pressure and Zonal Communications,” IPTC-18894-MS, International Petroleum Technology Conference (IPTC), presented at the International Petroleum Technology Conference, Nov. 14-16, 2016, 24 pages. |
Barree et al., “Realistic Assessment of Proppant Pack Conductivity for Material Selection,” SPE- 84306-MS, Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), presented at the Annual Technical Conference, Oct. 5-8, 2003, 12 pages. |
Clifton, “Modeling of In-Situ Stress Change Due to Cold Fluid Injection,” SPE 22107, Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), presented at the International Arctic Technology Conference, May 29-31, 1991, 13 pages. |
Corona et al., “Novel Washpipe-Free ICD Completion With Dissolvable Material,” OTC-28863-MS, Offshore Technology Conference (OTC), presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Apr. 30-May 3, 2018, 10 pages. |
Gil et al., “Wellbore Cooling as a Means to Permanently Increase Fracture Gradient,” SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, Sep. 24-27, 2006, published Jan. 1, 2006, 9 pages. |
Gillard et al., “A New Approach to Generating Fracture Conductivity,” SPE-135034-MS, Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Florence, Italy, Sep. 20-22, 2010, 13 pages. |
glossary.oilfield.slb.com [online], “Underbalance,” retrieved on Apr. 12, 2019, retrieved from URL http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/Terms/u/underbalance.aspx, 1 pages. |
Gomaa et al., “Acid Fracturing: The Effect of Formation Strength on Fracture Conductivity,” SPE 119623, Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, Jan. 2009, 18 pages. |
Gomaa et al., “Computational Fluid Dynamics Applied to Investigate Development and Optimization of Highly Conductive Channels within the Fracture Geometry,” SPE-179143-MS, Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, Texas, Feb. 9-11, 2016, 18 pages. |
Gomaa et al., “Improving Fracture Conductivity by Developing and Optimizing a Channels Within the Fracture Geometry: CFD Study,” SPE-178982-MS, Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), presented at the SPE International conference on Formation Damage Control in Layfayette, Feb. 24-26, 2016, 25 pages. |
hub.globalccsinstitute.com [online], “2.1 The Properties of CO2,” available on or before Oct. 22, 2015, via Internet Archive: Wayback Machine URL <https://hub.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/hazard-analysis-offshore-carbon-capture-platforms-and-offshore-pipelines/21-properties-co2>, 12 pages. |
Jensen, “Thermally induced hydraulic fracturing of cold water injectors,” WPC-26154, World Petroleum Conference (WPC), 14th World Petroleum Congress, May 29-Jun. 1, 1994, 2 pages. |
Kern et al., “Propping Fractures with Aluminum Particles,” SPE-1573-G-PA, Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), Journal of Petroleum Technology, Jun. 1961, 13:6 (583-589), 7 pages. |
Masa and Kuba, “Efficient use of compressed air for dry ice blasting,” Journal of Cleaner Production, 111:A, Jan. 2016, 9 pages. |
Mayerhofer et al., “Proppants? We Don't Need No Proppants,” SPE-38611, Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 457-464, Oct. 5, 1997, 8 pages. |
Meyer et al., “Theoretical Foundation and Design Formulae for Channel and Pillar Type Propped Fractures—A Method to Increase Fracture Conductivity,” SPE-170781-MS, Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Oct. 27-29, 2014, 25 pages. |
Mueller et al., “Stimulation of Tight Gas Reservoir using coupled Hydraulic and CO2 Cold-frac Technology,” SPE 160365, Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Oct. 22-24, 2012, 7 pages. |
Palisch et al., “Determining Realistic Fracture Conductivity and Understanding its Impact on Well Performance—Theory and Field Examples,” SPE-106301-MS, Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), presented at the 2007 Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, College Station, Texas, Jan. 29-31, 2007, 13 pages. |
Praxair, “Carbon Dioxide, Solid or Dry Ice, Safety Data Sheet P-4575,” Praxair, Jan. 1, 1997, 7 pages. |
princeton.edu [online], “Bernoulli's Equation,” available on or before Jul. 24, 1997, via Internet Archive: Wayback Machine URL <https://www.princeton.edu/˜asmits/Bicycle_web/Bernoulli.html>, 5 pages. |
Singh et al., “Introduction to an Effective Workover Method to Repair Causing Leak,” SPE-194654-MS, Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), presented at the SPE Oil and Gas India Conference and Exhibition, Apr. 9-11, 2019, 7 pages. |
Soreide et al., “Estimation of reservoir stress effects due to injection of cold fluids: an example from NCS,” ARMA 14-7394, American Rock Mechanics Association, presented at the 48th US Rock mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium, Jun. 1-4, 2014, 7 pages. |
Takahashi et al., “Degradation Study on Materials for Dissolvable Frac Plugs,” URTEC-2901283-MS, Unconventional Resources Technology Conference (URTC), presented at the SPE/AAPG/SEG Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, Jul. 23-25, 2018, 9 pages. |
Tinsley and Williams, “A new method for providing increased fracture conductivity and improving stimulation results,” SPE-4676-PA, Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), Journal of Petroleum Technology, 27:11 (1317-1325), 1975, 7 pages. |
Van Poollen et al., “Hydraulic Fracturing—Fracture Flow Capacity vs Well Productivity,” SPE-890-G, Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), Petroleum Transactions AIME, 213: 91-95, 1958, 5 pages. |
Van Poollen, “Productivity vs Permeability Damage in Hydraulically Produced Fractures,” SPE-906-2-G, Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), presented at Drilling and Production Practice, New York, New York, Jan. 1957, 8 pages. |
Vincent, “Examining our Assumptions—Have oversimplifications jeopardized our ability to design optimal fracture treatments,” SPE-119143-MS, Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, The Woodlands, Jan. 19-21, 2009, 51 pages. |
Vincent, “Five Things you Didn't Want to Know about Hydraulic Fractures,” ISRM-ICHF-2013-045, presented at the International Conference for Effective and Sustainable Hydraulic Fracturing, an ASRM specialized Conference, Australia, May 20-22, 2013, 14 pages. |
Weinstein, “Cold Waterflooding a Warm Reservoir,” SPE 5083, Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), presented at the 49th Annual Fall Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Oct. 6-9, 1974, 16 pages. |
Williams et al., “Acidizing Fundamentals,” Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Jan. 1979, 131 pages. |
Yu et al., “Chemical and Thermal Effects on Wellbore Stability of Shale Formations,” SPE 71366, Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), presented at the 2001 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Sep. 30-Oct. 3, 2001, 11 pages. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20220213761 A1 | Jul 2022 | US |