Embodiments described relate to tractors for pulling coiled tubing and other equipment through an underground well. In particular, embodiments of multiple tractor assemblies are described for pulling equipment downhole in a hydraulically driven manner.
Coiled tubing operations may be employed at an oilfield to deliver a downhole tool to an operation site for a variety of well intervention applications such as well stimulation, the forming of perforations, or the clean-out of debris from within the well. Coiled tubing operations are particularly adept at providing access to highly deviated or tortuous wells where gravity alone fails to provide access to all regions of the wells. During a coiled tubing operation, a spool of pipe (i.e., a coiled tubing) with a downhole tool at the end thereof is slowly straightened and forcibly pushed into the well. For example, a clean out tool may be delivered to a clean out site within the well in this manner to clean out sand or other undesirable debris thereat.
Unfortunately, the coiled tubing is susceptible to helical buckling as it is pushed deeper and deeper into the well. That is, depending on the degree of tortuousness and the well depth traversed, the coiled tubing will eventually buckle against the well wall and begin to take on the character of a helical spring. In such circumstances, continued downhole pushing on the coiled tubing simply lodges it more firmly into the well wall ensuring its immobilization (i.e. coiled tubing “lock-up”) and potentially damaging the coiled tubing itself. This has become a more significant matter over the years as the number of deviated extended reach wells has become more prevalent. Thus, in order to extend the reach of the coiled tubing, a tractor may be incorporated into a downhole portion thereof for pulling the coiled tubing deeper into the well.
For a conventional tractor, power may be supplied downhole by way of an electric cable. However, unless the inner diameter of the coiled tubing is undesirably increased, this reduces the available internal flow space of the coiled tubing. Alternatively, the electric cable may be integrated into the wall of the coiled tubing. However, as a practical matter, this presents significant manufacturing challenges. In either case, the addition of electric cabling to the coiled tubing assembly may significantly increase the total weight thereof. This added load may play a significant role in the total achievable depth of the coiled tubing. Furthermore, given the independent nature of the coiled tubing and electric cable, other challenges may be presented in terms of the effort required to maintain compatible tension and control simultaneously through such separate lines of equipment.
In light of the complications presented by the incorporation of an electric cable, the tractor may be hydraulically driven as detailed in U.S. application Ser. No. 11/772,181 entitled Hydraulically Driven Tractor, incorporated herein by reference in its entirety as noted above. That is, given the availability of hydraulics provided via coiled tubing, the use of an electric cable may be avoided in certain circumstances. As such, avoiding space issues and other complications as noted above may be appreciated.
Unfortunately, regardless of the manner of powering the tractor, the overall reach of coiled tubing in a well remains limited. This is due in large part to the fact that the load carrying capacity of any given tractor faces its own limitations. For example, in the case of a cable powered tractor, sending more power downhole will eventually result in damaging of the tractor as opposed to extending the reach of the coiled tubing assembly. The hydraulically powered tractor on the other hand avails itself the possibility of either increasing pressure or reducing flow rate in order to increase overall load carrying capacity. Nevertheless, at some point increased pressure also results in tractor damage while slowing down of the flow rate slows the speed of the operation and may even halt it altogether. Overall, the load carrying capacity of a tractor in a conventionally sized well may be limited, for example, in many cases to no more than between about 5,000 lbs and 7,500 lbs.
At present, wells of ever increasing depth and deviation are being employed, often well beyond 10,000 feet in depth, and often in need of interventional operations that traditionally lend themselves to the utilization of coiled tubing. However, given the above noted load limitations of available tractor assemblies, the extent of the reach of the coiled tubing may be affected by a host of factors related to the overall load, such as the degree of deviated character of the well and the increasing weight of the coiled tubing assembly as it is advanced further and further into the well. Generally speaking, a conventional tractor driven operation employing standard coiled tubing (i.e. coiled tubing that is between about 2″ and about 3½″ in diameter) may have an effective reach of less than about 10,000 feet in a highly deviated well.
A tractor assembly is provided for downhole advancement in a well. The assembly includes an uphole tractor and a downhole tractor. Each tractor in turn includes uphole and downhole housings to accommodate uphole and downhole anchors with the anchors configured for interchangeably engaging a wall of the well. Additionally, a hydraulically driven piston is disposed through each of the housings of each tractor for actuation of the engaging.
In another embodiment, the assembly may include uphole and downhole tractors. A hydraulic line may thus be coupled to each of the tractors for hydraulically distributing a load accommodated by the assembly among the tractors. This may be achieved by configuring the line to accommodate a given flow rate. Additionally, the positioning of a choke in the line immediately adjacently uphole of the downhole tractor may aid in the distributing.
Embodiments are described with reference to certain downhole tandem tractoring operations. In particular, tractor aided coiled tubing clean out of downhole debris in a well is detailed below (see
Referring now to
The above-noted tractors 125, 150 of the assembly 100 are each equipped with distinct sondes (130, 140 and 160, 170, respectively). Each sonde 130, 140, 160, 170 is made up of housings 135, 145, 165, 175 which accommodate a set of anchor arms 137, 147, 167, 177. As detailed further below, the assembly 100 is configured to employ movement of the housings 135, 145, 165, 175 and the arms 137, 147, 167, 177 in a coordinated manner so as to achieve advancement of the assembly 100 through the well 180. More particularly, a piston 115 is provided through each of the housings 135, 145, 165, 175. As detailed further below, hydraulics may be employed to shift the position of the housings 135, 145, 165, 175 relative to the piston 115 and to interchangeably actuate the arms 137, 147, 167, 177. Thus, an inchworming-like advancement of the assembly 100 through the well 180 may be attained.
Referring now to
In powering the tractors 125, 150, the load capacities thereof may tend to vary. Nevertheless, the addition of a second tractor still raises the cumulative load capacity of the assembly 100 significantly, for example by at least about 150%. More specifically, the uphole tractor 125 may contribute a given amount to the total load capacity of the assembly 100 whereas the downhole tractor 150 is configured to contribute an amount that is at least about half the given amount. Additionally, as detailed below, techniques may be employed in order to tailor the load carrying capacities of the tractors 125, 150 in order to obtain a substantially balanced load therebetween. In this manner, unbalanced wear on the uphole tractor 125 may be avoided and a greater total load capacity of the assembly 100 achieved.
Continuing now with reference to
The pressure provided to the chamber 225 as noted above may act upon a first uphole piston head 230 in order to aid in driving the assembly 100 from left to right as shown. For example, the first uphole sonde 130 may be immobilized in the well 180 of
Continuing to examine the schematic of
In the embodiment described above, the downhole tractor 150 provides a load carrying capacity that is roughly half that of the uphole tractor 125 as described. However, when examining the assembly 100 as a whole, the utilization of a second tractor increases the load capacity by time and a half. That is, the load capacities of the tractors 125, 150 are cumulative. Thus, the addition of a second tractor takes the load carrying capacity of the assembly 100 up from 5,000 lbs. to 7,500 lbs. Thus, even where the load accommodated by the assembly 100 is left relatively unbalanced, the total load capacity of the assembly 100 is markedly increased. In practical terms, this may translate to extending the reach of the assembly 100 by several thousand feet into a well 180 such as that of
Continuing with reference to
Referring now to
The assembly 100 may be delivered to the oilfield 300 by way of a mobile coiled tubing truck 330 which accommodates a coiled tubing reel 340. The truck 330 may also provide a control unit 335 to direct the clean out application as well as the deployment of the assembly 100 and coiled tubing 110. As depicted, the coiled tubing 110 is directed through a conventional injector 350 and to a blowout preventor stack 360 and other valving to help effectively guide and advance the coiled tubing 110 and assembly 100 to the clean out site.
Continuing now with reference to
In the circumstance described above, the downhole tractor 150 is unable to anchor due to the diameter of the well 180 at the washout location 400. For example, the largest attainable anchoring diameter of the assembly 100 may be between about 8 and 10 inches, whereas the washout location 400 of
That is, depending on the overall load involved, the redundancy provided by employing multiple tractors 125, 150, allows tractoring of the assembly 100 to continue downhole via the uphole tractor 125, even where the downhole tractor 150 has become temporarily ineffective. Such would not be possible with a single tractor assembly where encountering such a washout location 400 would likely render continued tractoring impractical. Indeed, depending on the total load involved, the utilization of a multiple or tandem tractor assembly 100 as detailed herein, may allow for tractoring to continue whenever one of the tractors 125, 150 is incapacitated, temporarily or otherwise, for any number of reasons. For example, these reasons may include mechanical failure of one of the tractors 125, 150 in addition to the emergence of a washout location 400 as described.
As detailed above, the tractors 125, 150 may be of differing load carrying capacity due to the hydraulics detailed in
Referring now to
With specific reference to
By way of brief explanation, the reduction in flow rate leading to the increase in overall load capacity is a function of the inherent pressure drop found in the hydraulic lines which deliver hydraulic power to the tractors. The amount of this pressure drop is variable, depending upon the flow rate through these hydraulic lines. Thus, as flow rate is reduced, pressure loss is reduced and the amount of pressure provided to the tractors (e.g. via the chambers 225, 250 of
In addition to increasing the overall load capacity of the assembly as described above, it is also worth noting that as the flow rate is reduced, sharing of the total load between the tractors becomes more balanced. This is an inherent result of the reduction in the amount of pressure that is lost in the hydraulic lines of the assembly as the flow is reduced. For example, returning to the chart of
Continuing now with reference to
Referring now to
The hydraulically powered assembly may be positioned at a location in the well as indicated at 675. Indeed, where necessary, the availability of multiple tractors may allow for continued advancement of the assembly to the location even where one of the tractors is unable to contribute to the advancement due to malfunction, well conditions, etc. Furthermore, as indicated at 690, a well application may ultimately be performed with a downhole tool coupled to the assembly (e.g. such as a clean out application as depicted in
All in all, embodiments of downhole tractor assemblies detailed herein may be employed to extend the reach of coiled tubing in a well, particularly those of a highly deviated nature. This is due to the substantially improved load carrying capacity of the assembly attained by the employment of multiple hydraulically driven tractors. Thus, the reach of the assembly may not be limited to the limitations inherent in any single tractor in terms of load. Indeed, embodiments of tandem assemblies detailed herein above may provide for total load capacity of substantially greater than 5,000 lbs. which may translate to a tractoring depth of more than 10,000 feet through a well of deviated character.
The preceding description has been presented with reference to presently preferred embodiments. Persons skilled in the art and technology to which these embodiments pertain will appreciate that alterations and changes in the described structures and methods of operation may be practiced without meaningfully departing from the principle, and scope of these embodiments. For example, while assemblies are detailed herein utilizing two tractors, more than two tractors may be employed. Additionally, chokes beyond the supplemental choke detailed in relation to
This Patent Document is a continuation-in-part claiming priority under 35 U.S.C. §120 to U.S. application Ser. No. 11/772,181 entitled Hydraulically Driven Tractor filed on Jun. 30, 2007 now abandoned, incorporated herein by reference in its entirety and also in turn claiming priority under 35 U.S.C. §119(e) to U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/883,115, entitled Flow Driven Coiled Tubing Tractor, filed on Jan. 2, 2007, which is also incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. This Patent Document also claims priority under 35 U.S.C. §119(e) to U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 61/047,151, entitled Tandem Tractoring, filed on Apr. 23, 2008, which is incorporated herein by reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5332048 | Underwood et al. | Jul 1994 | A |
5810080 | Meynier | Sep 1998 | A |
6082461 | Newman et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6089323 | Newman et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6112809 | Angle | Sep 2000 | A |
6241031 | Beaufort | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6273189 | Gissler | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6347674 | Bloom | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6367366 | Bloom | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6427786 | Beaufort | Aug 2002 | B2 |
6464003 | Bloom | Oct 2002 | B2 |
6467557 | Krueger | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6478097 | Bloom | Nov 2002 | B2 |
6629568 | Post et al. | Oct 2003 | B2 |
6640894 | Bloom | Nov 2003 | B2 |
6679341 | Bloom | Jan 2004 | B2 |
6691587 | King | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6715559 | Bloom | Apr 2004 | B2 |
6745854 | Bloom | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6868906 | Vail | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6935423 | Kusmer | Aug 2005 | B2 |
6938708 | Bloom | Sep 2005 | B2 |
7048047 | Bloom | May 2006 | B2 |
7080700 | Bloom | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7080701 | Bloom | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7121364 | Mock | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7174974 | Bloom | Feb 2007 | B2 |
20020007971 | Beaufort et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020029908 | Bloom | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020104686 | Bloom | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20030116356 | Bloom | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030121703 | Bloom | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030188875 | Bloom | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20040245018 | Bloom | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050072577 | Freeman | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050082055 | Bloom et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050145415 | Doering et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050247488 | Mock | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050252686 | Bloom | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20060196694 | Bloom | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060196696 | Bloom | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20080066963 | Sheiretov et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080073077 | Tunc et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2346908 | Aug 2000 | GB |
2351308 | Dec 2000 | GB |
2362405 | Nov 2001 | GB |
2370056 | Jun 2002 | GB |
2378468 | Feb 2003 | GB |
2378469 | Feb 2003 | GB |
2380755 | Apr 2003 | GB |
2389135 | Dec 2003 | GB |
2413816 | Nov 2005 | GB |
2414499 | Nov 2005 | GB |
2434819 | Aug 2007 | GB |
1236098 | Jun 1986 | SU |
WO 9521987 | Aug 1995 | WO |
9708418 | Mar 1997 | WO |
0036266 | Jun 2000 | WO |
0046481 | Aug 2000 | WO |
0109478 | Feb 2001 | WO |
0244509 | Jun 2002 | WO |
2004072433 | Aug 2004 | WO |
2005090739 | Sep 2005 | WO |
2008024859 | Feb 2008 | WO |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20090218105 A1 | Sep 2009 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60883115 | Jan 2007 | US | |
61047151 | Apr 2008 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 11772181 | Jun 2007 | US |
Child | 12419375 | US |