Current practice for completing downhole structures, particularly deepwater wells, involves stimulating, hydraulic fracturing, frac packing and/or gravel packing one or more zones and then landing a fluid isolation valve, typically a ball valve system, above the treated zones. The fluid isolation valve temporarily blocks fluid flow so that an upper completion string can be run and connect the treated zones to surface for enabling production after the fluid isolation valve is opened. Although such systems do generally work for their intended purposes, they are not without limitations. For example, these known ball-type fluid isolation valves do not provide an efficient and reliable system for periodically replacing portions of the upper completion, and may require wireline intervention, hydraulic pressuring, or the running and/or manipulation of a designated tool to control the fluid isolation valve. For example, artificial lift systems (e.g., electric submersible pumping systems or ESPs), are increasingly desirable, particularly for use in deepwater wells. Accordingly, advances in downhole valve technology, at times referred to as “mechanical barriers”, particularly for deepwater wells and/or for enabling more reliable and efficient replacement of upper completion systems and components, are always well received by the industry.
A completion system, including a lower completion installed in a borehole proximate to a downhole formation; an intermediate completion assembly directly engaged with the lower completion, the intermediate completion assembly including a barrier valve and packer device, the barrier valve operatively arranged to selectively impede fluid flow through the lower completion, the packer device operatively arranged for isolating the formation; and an upper completion string selectably engagable with the intermediate completion assembly, the barrier valve operatively arranged to be transitionable to an open position when engaged with the upper completion string and transitioning to a closed position via the upper completion string when the upper completion string is pulled out of the borehole.
A method of completing a borehole including running a lower completion in the borehole proximate to a downhole formation; engaging an intermediate completion assembly directly with the lower completion; impeding fluid flow through the lower completion selectively with a barrier valve of the intermediate completion assembly prior to producing through the completion, the barrier valve operatively arranged to be transitionable to an open position when engaged with an upper completion string and transitioning to a closed position via the upper completion string when the upper completion string is pulled out of the borehole; and isolating the formation with a packer device of the intermediate completion assembly prior to producing through the completion.
The following descriptions should not be considered limiting in any way. With reference to the accompanying drawings, like elements are numbered alike:
A detailed description of one or more embodiments of the disclosed apparatus and method are presented herein by way of exemplification and not limitation with reference to the Figures.
Referring now to
The system 10 also includes a work string 22 that enables an intermediate completion assembly 24 to be run in. Essentially, the assembly 24 is arranged for functionally replacing the valve 20. That is, while the valve 20 remains physically downhole, the assembly 24 assumes or otherwise takes off at least some functionality of the valve 20, i.e., the assembly 24 provides isolation of the lower completion 14 and the formation and/or portion of the borehole 12 in which the lower completion 14 is positioned. Specifically, in the illustrated embodiment, the assembly 24 in the illustrated embodiment is a fluid loss and isolation assembly and includes a barrier valve 26 and a production packer or packer device 28. By packer device, it is generally meant any assembly arranged to seal an annulus, isolation a formation or portion of a borehole, anchor a string attached thereto, etc. The barrier valve 26 is shown in more detail in
A method of assembling and using the completion 10 according to one embodiment is generally described with respect to
As illustrated in
As depicted in
In order to start production, a production string 54 is run and engaged with the assembly 24 as shown in
Workovers are a necessary part of the lifecycle of many wells. ESP systems, for example, are typically replaced about every 8-10 years, or some other amount of time. Other systems, strings, or components in the upper completion 18 may need to be similarly removed or replaced periodically, e.g., in the event of a fault, damage, corrosion, etc. In order to perform the workover, reverse circulation may be performed by closing a circulation valve 58 and shifting open a hydraulic sliding sleeve 60 of the production string 54. Advantageously, if the production string 54 or other portions in the upper completion 18 (i.e., up-hole of the assembly 24) needs to be removed, removal of that portion will “automatically” revert the barrier valve 26 to its closed position, thereby preventing fluid loss. That is, the same act of pulling out the upper completion string, e.g., the production string 54, the work string 22, etc., will also shift the sleeve 32 into its closed position and isolate the fluids in the lower completion. This eliminates the need for expensive and additional wireline intervention, hydraulic pressure cycling, running and/or manipulating a designated shifting tool, etc. The packer 28 also remains in place to maintain isolation. This avoids the need for expensive and time consuming processes, such as wireline intervention, which may otherwise be necessary to close a fluid loss valve, e.g., the valve 20.
A replacement string, e.g., a new production string resembling the string 54, can be run back down into the same intermediate completion assembly, e.g., the assembly 24. Alternatively, if a long period of time has elapsed, e.g., 8-10 years as indicated above with respect to ESP systems, it may instead be desirable to run in a new intermediate completion assembly, as equipment wears out over time, particularly in the relatively harsh downhole environment. For example, as shown in
Unlike the assembly 24, the assembly 24′ has a shifting tool 62 for shifting the sleeve 32 of the original assembly 24 in order to open the barrier valve 26, which was closed by the shifting tool 56 when the production string 54 was pulled out. As long as the assembly 24′ remains engaged with the assembly 24, the tool 62 will mechanically hold the barrier valve 26 in its open position. In this way, the assembly 24′ can be stacked on the assembly 24 and the barrier valve 26′ will essentially take over the fluid loss functionality of the barrier valve 26 of the assembly 24 by holding the barrier valve 26 open with the tool 62. It is to be appreciated that any number of these subsequent assemblies 24′ could continue to be stacked on each other as needed. For example, a new one of the assemblies 24′ could be stacked onto a previous assembly between the acts of pulling out an old upper completion or production string and running in a new one. In this way, the newly run upper completion or production string will interact with the uppermost of the assemblies 24′ (as previously described with respect to the assembly 24 and the production string 54), while all the other intermediate assemblies are held open by the shifting tools of the subsequent assemblies (as previously described with respect to the assembly 24 and the shifting tool 62).
The shifting tool 30′ also differs from the shifting tool 30 to which it corresponds. Specifically, the shifting tool 30′ includes a seat 64 for receiving a ball or plug 66 that is dropped and/or pumped downhole. By blocking flow through the seat 64 with the plug 66, fluid pressure can be built up in the work string 22′ suitable for setting and anchoring the production packer 28′. That is, pressure was able to be established for setting the original packer 28 because the fluid loss valve 20 was closed, but with respect to
After setting the packer 28′, the string 22′ can be pulled out, thereby automatically closing the sleeve 32′ of the barrier valve 26′ as previously described with respect to the assembly 24 and the work string 22 (e.g., by use of a releasable connection). As previously noted, the original barrier valve 26 remains opened by the shifting tool 62 of the subsequent assembly 24′. As the assembly 24′ has essentially taken over the functionality of the original assembly 24 (i.e., by holding the barrier valve 26 constantly open with the tool 62), a new production string, e.g., resembling the production string 54, can be run in essentially exactly as previously described with respect to the production string 54 and the assembly 24, but instead engaged with the assembly 24′. That is, instead of manipulating the barrier valve 26, the shifting tool (e.g., resembling the tool 56) of the new production string (e.g., resembling the string 54) will shift the sleeve 32′ of the barrier valve 26′ open for enabling production of the fluids from the downhole zones or reservoir.
It is again to be appreciated that any number of the assemblies 24′ can continue to be run in and stacked atop one another. For example, this stacking of the assemblies 24′ can occur between the acts of pulling out an old production string and running a new production string, with the pulling out of each production string “automatically” closing the uppermost one of the assemblies 24′ and isolating the fluid in the lower completion 14. In this way, any number of production strings, e.g., ESP systems, can be replaced over time without the need for expensive and time consuming wireline intervention, hydraulic pressure cycling, running and/or manipulation of a designated shifting tool, etc. Additionally, the stackable nature of the assemblies 24, 24′, etc., enables the isolation and fluid loss hardware to be refreshed or renewed over time in order to minimize the likelihood of a part failure due to wear, corrosion, aging, etc.
It is noted that the fluid loss valve 20 can be substituted, for example, by the assembly 24 being run in on a work string resembling the work string 22′ as opposed to the work string 22. For example, as shown in
As another example, a modified system 10b is illustrated in
It is thus noted that the current invention as illustrated in
In view of the foregoing it is to be appreciated that new completions can be installed with a valve, e.g., the fluid loss valve 20, that requires some separate intervention and/or operation to close the valve during workovers, or, alternatively, according to the systems 10a or 10b, which not only initially isolate a lower completion, e.g., the lower completion 14, but additionally include a barrier valve, e.g., the barrier valve 26, that automatically closes upon pulling out the upper completion, as described above.
While the invention has been described with reference to an exemplary embodiment or embodiments, it will be understood by those skilled in the art that various changes may be made and equivalents may be substituted for elements thereof without departing from the scope of the invention. In addition, many modifications may be made to adapt a particular situation or material to the teachings of the invention without departing from the essential scope thereof. Therefore, it is intended that the invention not be limited to the particular embodiment disclosed as the best mode contemplated for carrying out this invention, but that the invention will include all embodiments falling within the scope of the claims. Also, in the drawings and the description, there have been disclosed exemplary embodiments of the invention and, although specific terms may have been employed, they are unless otherwise stated used in a generic and descriptive sense only and not for purposes of limitation, the scope of the invention therefore not being so limited. Moreover, the use of the terms first, second, etc. do not denote any order or importance, but rather the terms first, second, etc. are used to distinguish one element from another. Furthermore, the use of the terms a, an, etc. do not denote a limitation of quantity, but rather denote the presence of at least one of the referenced item.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3493052 | Evans et al. | Feb 1970 | A |
4274486 | Fredd | Jun 1981 | A |
4382623 | Richardson | May 1983 | A |
4942926 | Lessi | Jul 1990 | A |
5058682 | Pringle | Oct 1991 | A |
5311939 | Pringle et al. | May 1994 | A |
5372193 | French | Dec 1994 | A |
5465787 | Roth | Nov 1995 | A |
5831156 | Mullins | Nov 1998 | A |
5865251 | Rebardi et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5875852 | Floyd et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
6302216 | Patel | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6352119 | Patel | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6491102 | Leismer et al. | Dec 2002 | B2 |
6516886 | Patel | Feb 2003 | B2 |
6598675 | Bussear et al. | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6675893 | Lund | Jan 2004 | B2 |
6684950 | Patel | Feb 2004 | B2 |
6695049 | Ostocke et al. | Feb 2004 | B2 |
7152688 | Richards | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7219743 | Wolters et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
7228914 | Chavers et al. | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7322422 | Patel | Jan 2008 | B2 |
7380609 | Page et al. | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7428924 | Patel | Sep 2008 | B2 |
7430153 | Fraser et al. | Sep 2008 | B2 |
7487830 | Wolters et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7617876 | Patel et al. | Nov 2009 | B2 |
7640977 | Jonas | Jan 2010 | B2 |
7775275 | Patel | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7896079 | Dyer et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
7950454 | Patel et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
8056628 | Whitsitt et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
8231947 | Vaidya et al. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
8286713 | Broussard | Oct 2012 | B2 |
8353353 | Reaux | Jan 2013 | B2 |
8813855 | Lake | Aug 2014 | B2 |
20030150622 | Patel et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030211768 | Cameron et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20040159444 | Wolters et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20050092501 | Chavers et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050095156 | Wolters et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050126789 | Nivens et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050230122 | Cho et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20060151183 | Turner | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20070084607 | Wright et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070119599 | Chavers et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070227727 | Patel et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070235185 | Patel et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070295504 | Patel et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080223585 | Patel et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20090025923 | Patel et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090078429 | Du et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090218104 | Brown | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20100206579 | Guven et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100236774 | Patel et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100270031 | Patel | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100300702 | Andrews et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20110192596 | Patel | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20110226479 | Tippel et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20120138309 | Lake | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20120255738 | Lauderdale et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120261137 | Martinez et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20130075108 | Frisby et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130075109 | Frisby et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130087344 | Reid et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130255946 | Frisby et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130255947 | Frisby et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130255958 | Frisby et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130255961 | Frisby et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130306316 | Patel | Nov 2013 | A1 |
Entry |
---|
Martin P. Coronado et al., “Advanced Openhole Completions Utilizing a Simplified Zone Isolation System”; Socity of Petroleum Engineers, SPE Paper No. 77438; Sep. 29, 2002. |
Notification of Transmittal of the International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority; PCT/US2011/063519; dated Jul. 30, 2012; Korean Intellecutal Property Office; 8 pages. |
L. Izquierdo et all, “Managing the Retrieval of Triple-Zone Intelligent Completions in Extended-Reach Wells Offshore California”; Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE Paper No. 112115; Mar. 4, 2008. |
Dwayne Leismer, “A System Approach to Annular Control for Total Well Safety”; Offshore Technology Conference; Paper No. OTC 7349; May 3, 1993. |
Notification of Transmittal of the International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority; PCT/US2011/060168; dated Jun. 29, 2012; Korean Intellectual Property Office; 10 pages. |
K. Munday et al., “Want to Make Tree Operations Safer? Why Not Use the DHSV as a Barrier?”; Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE Paper No. 96337; Sep. 24, 2006. |
T.A. Nassereddin et al., “Electromagnetic Surface-Controlled Sub-Surface Safety Valve: An Immediate Soluation to Secure Wells with Damaged Control Line”; Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE Paper No. 138356; Nov. 1, 2010. |
Great Britain Search Report for GB Application No. 1303095.2, dated Jun. 24, 2013, pp. 1-5. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for PCT Application No. PCT/US2013/06856, dated May 30, 2013, pp. 1-14. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20130255947 A1 | Oct 2013 | US |