Embodiments described relate to logging tools for use in establishing an overall profile of a well, such as hydrocarbon or other wells. In particular, techniques are described of employing such tools in conjunction with fiber optic communication so as to further real-time communications and follow on treatment applications.
Exploring, drilling and completing hydrocarbon and other wells are generally complicated, time consuming and ultimately very expensive endeavors. As a result, over the years, well architecture has become more sophisticated where appropriate in order to help enhance access to underground hydrocarbon reserves. For example, as opposed to vertical wells of limited depth, it is not uncommon to find hydrocarbon wells exceeding 30,000 feet in depth which are often fairly deviated with horizontal sections aimed at targeting particular underground reserves.
In recognition of the potentially enormous expense of well completion, added emphasis has been placed on well monitoring and maintenance. That is, placing added emphasis on increasing the life and productivity of a given well may help ensure that the well provides a healthy return on the significant investment involved in its completion. Thus, over the years, well diagnostics and treatment have become more sophisticated and critical facets of managing well operations.
In the case of non-vertical (i.e. ‘horizontal’) wells as noted above, the more sophisticated architecture may increase the likelihood of accessing underground hydrocarbons. However, the nature of such wells presents particular challenges in terms of well access and management. For example, during the life of a well, a variety of well access applications may be performed within the well with a host of different tools or measurement devices. However, providing downhole access to wells of such challenging architecture may require more than simply dropping a wireline into the well with the applicable tool located at the end thereof. Rather, coiled tubing is frequently employed to provide access to wells of more sophisticated architecture.
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. This may be achieved by running coiled tubing from the spool, at a truck or large skid, through a gooseneck guide arm and injector which are positioned over the well at the oilfield. In this manner, forces necessary to drive the coiled tubing through the deviated well may be employed, thereby advancing the tool through the well.
Well diagnostic tools and treatment tools may be advanced and delivered via coiled tubing as described above. Diagnostic tools, often referred to as logging tools, may be employed to analyze the condition of the well and its surroundings. Such logging tools may come in handy for building an overall profile of the well in terms of formation characteristics, well fluid and flow information, etc. In the case of production logging, such a profile may be particularly beneficial in the face of an unintended or undesired event. For example, unintended loss of production may occur over time due to scale buildup or other factors. In such circumstances, a logging tool may be employed to determine an overall production profile of the well. With an overall production profile available, the contribution of various well segments may be understood. Thus, as described below, corrective maintenance in the form of a treatment application may be performed at an underperforming well segment based on the results of the described logging application. For example, in the case of scale buildup as noted above, an acidizing treatment may subsequently be employed at the location of the underperforming segment.
Unfortunately, in circumstances where an accurate production profile is obtained via coiled tubing as described above, the entire coiled tubing must be removed before a treatment application may ensue. Once more, due to the challenging architecture of the well, the treatment application is again achieved via coiled tubing. Thus, a separate coiled tubing assembly must generally be available at the well site for delivery of a treatment tool (e.g. for an acidizing treatment at an underperforming well segment). In addition to added capital expense, this will ultimately cost a significant amount of time. That is, substantial time is lost in terms of withdrawal of the initial coiled tubing and rigging-up the subsequent coiled tubing for treatment, not to mention the time incurred in actually running the treatment application. All in all, several hours to days are often lost due to the duplicitous nature of such coiled tubing deployments.
The apparent redundancy in repeated coiled tubing deployments as described above, is due to the functional equipment requirements of conventional logging tools. For example, the logging tool is much more than a mere pressure or temperature sensor. Rather it is an electrically powered device that is equipped for significant data acquisition and communication with hardware at the surface of the oilfield. Therefore, the delivery of such tools includes the advancement of an electrical cable that powers the tool, such as a conventional wireline cable that also communicatively tethers the tool to hardware at the oilfield surface.
As a result of the presence of a cable through the coiled tubing as noted above, treatment applications through the coiled tubing are generally impractical. That is, the substantial diameter of the cable relative that of the coiled tubing occludes the coiled tubing so as to limit flow, ballistic actuation (e.g. ‘ball drop’), and other features often employed in the subsequent treatment application. For example, a standard cable may be up to about 0.6 inches or more in diameter while disposed in coiled tubing having an inner diameter of generally less than about 2 inches. Furthermore, even in the case of low flow acidizing as noted above, the treatment itself is likely to damage the polymeric nature of the cable's outer layers. As a result, future communications with the logging tool would be impaired until the time and expense of cable replacement and/or repair were incurred. Thus, as a practical matter, coiled tubing logging applications generally remain followed by separately deployed coiled tubing treatment applications where necessary.
A logging assembly is provided for disposal in a well. The assembly includes coiled tubing deployable from an oilfield surface adjacent the well with a fiber optic line disposed therethrough. A logging tool is coupled to the fiber optic line and is configured to acquire well information.
An assembly is also provided that includes coiled tubing deployable from an oilfield surface adjacent the well. The assembly also includes an interventional treatment device coupled to the coiled tubing so as to allow performance of an interventional application relative to the well. Additionally, a logging tool is provided coupled to the coiled tubing. The logging tool is configured to acquire well information for establishing an overall profile of the well.
Embodiments are described with reference to certain features and techniques of fiber optically enabled log assemblies that include coiled tubing for downhole delivery. As such, depicted embodiments focus on advantages such as well treatment capacity made available by the use of fiber optic communications with such coiled tubing log assemblies. Thus, embodiments are generally depicted with incorporated treatment tools. However, a variety of configurations may be employed with and without treatment tools. That is, an optically enabled coiled tubing log assembly may be employed apart from a follow-on treatment application. Regardless, embodiments described herein are employed that include a logging tool deliverable downhole via coiled tubing, while employing a fiber optic line for communications. Thus, at a minimum, enhanced high-speed communications may be made available via an overall lighter weight assembly.
Referring now to
Continuing with reference to
While being ideally suited for high speed communications, the use of fiber optic material for the line 101 also eliminates electrical conveyance, such as copper wiring. This allows for the weight of the line 101 to be substantially reduced as compared to a conventional cable. Therefore, powering of the logging tool 150, treatment tool 125, and any other downhole device may be achieved by a downhole power source (see the battery 490 of
In the embodiment of
Referring now to
The cross-sectional view of
The casing 225 surrounding the core 200 of fibers 250, 255 may be of a metal based material such as stainless steel, an austenitic nickel-chromium-based superalloy, such as inconel, a transition metal nickel, or other appropriate temperature and/or corrosion resistant metal based material. For example, in other embodiments, acid resistant carbon or polymer-based coatings may be utilized. Corrosion resistance to acid and hydrogen sulfide, may be of particular benefit. Indeed, the line 101 may be well protected for use in a well environment and in light of any follow on treatment application, such as acidizing treatment channeled through the available volume 275 of the coiled tubing 110.
In alternate embodiments, more than two fibers may be employed for transmitting of light-based data communications between the surface and downhole tools such as the logging tool 150 of
Referring now to
Continuing with reference to
Advancement of the assembly 100 as described above is directed via the coiled tubing 110. Surface delivery equipment 325, including a coiled tubing truck 335 with reel 310, is positioned adjacent the well 380 at the oilfield 300. The coiled tubing 110 may be pre-loaded with the fiber optic line 101 of
The above manner of advancing the coiled tubing 110 and assembly 100, and initiating a logging application, may be directed by way of a control unit 342. In the embodiment shown, the control unit 342 is computerized equipment secured to the truck 335. However, the unit 342 may be of a more mobile variety such as a laptop computer. Additionally, powered controlling of the application may be hydraulic, pneumatic and/or electrical. Regardless, the wireless nature of the direction allows the unit 342 to control the operation, even in circumstances where subsequent different application assemblies are to be deployed downhole. That is, the need for a subsequent mobilization of control equipment may be eliminated.
As detailed further below, the unit 342 wirelessly communicates with a transceiver hub 344 of the coiled tubing reel 310. The receiver hub 344 is coupled to a surface opto-electric interface 400 housed at the reel 310 and configured for converting electronic signals to optical signals and vice versa so as to allow communication between the line 101 and the hub 344 (see
Referring now to
In
Referring now to
Referring now to
As indicated at 660, certain treatment tools may also be coupled to the coiled tubing and fiber optic line in advance of the logging application. Thus, a subsequent treatment application may be run as indicated at 680 without necessarily removing or replacing the coiled tubing with one configured exclusively for treatment. As detailed above, this is made practical by the narrow profile of the line, coupled to the tools through any necessary opto-electric interfacing (as also noted). Of course, in alternate embodiments however, the optical coiled tubing log assembly may be removed and reconfigured or replaced with an assembly directed solely at treatment. In either case, the entire operation may continue to be directed by the small footprint of a single control unit which may consist of no more than a laptop computer.
Embodiments described hereinabove include a coiled tubing log assembly that avoids use of an electronic cable therethrough for powering and communications. Thus, higher speed more reliable communications are achieved while simultaneously leaving the coiled tubing substantially un-occluded. As a result, treatment applications may also be run through the assembly as desired. Such treatment applications may even take place without undue concern over damage to the communication line. Thus, an improved assembly may be realized that reduces time, equipment and expense when running coiled tubing based logging applications followed by treatment applications.
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. Furthermore, the foregoing description should not be read as pertaining only to the precise structures described and shown in the accompanying drawings, but rather should be read as consistent with and as support for the following claims, which are to have their fullest and fairest scope.
This Patent Document is a continuation-in-part claiming priority under 35 U.S.C. §120 to U.S. application Ser. No. 11/135,314 entitled System and Methods Using Fiber Optics in Coiled Tubing filed on May 23, 2005 now U.S. Pat. No. 7,617,873, incorporated herein by reference in its entirety and which in turn claims priority under 35 U.S.C. §119(e) to U.S. Provisional App. Ser. No. 60/575,327, also entitled System and Methods Using Fiber Optics in Coiled Tubing, filed on May 28, 2004, and also incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
2558427 | Fagan | Jun 1951 | A |
2651027 | Vogel | Sep 1953 | A |
4859054 | Harrison | Aug 1989 | A |
5042903 | Jakubowski | Aug 1991 | A |
5434395 | Storck et al. | Jul 1995 | A |
5485745 | Rademaker et al. | Jan 1996 | A |
5542471 | Dickinson | Aug 1996 | A |
5573225 | Boyle et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
5898517 | Weis | Apr 1999 | A |
5992250 | Kluth et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5996689 | Head | Dec 1999 | A |
6009216 | Pruett et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6157893 | Berger et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6192983 | Neuroth et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6247536 | Leismer et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6281489 | Tubel et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6323420 | Head | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6349768 | Leising | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6392151 | Rafie et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6419014 | Meek et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6474152 | Mullins et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6497290 | Misselbrook et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6519568 | Harvey et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6581455 | Berger et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6667280 | Chang et al. | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6789621 | Wetzel et al. | Sep 2004 | B2 |
6817410 | Wetzel et al. | Nov 2004 | B2 |
7055604 | Jee et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7140435 | Defretin et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7152685 | Adnan et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7182134 | Wetzel et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7207216 | Meister et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7308941 | Rolovic et al. | Dec 2007 | B2 |
7420475 | Adnan et al. | Sep 2008 | B2 |
7515774 | Vannuffelen et al. | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7617873 | Lovell et al. | Nov 2009 | B2 |
7929812 | Vannuffelen et al. | Apr 2011 | B2 |
20010050172 | Tolman et al. | Dec 2001 | A1 |
20020007945 | Neuroth et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020017386 | Ringgenberg et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020125008 | Wetzel et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20040020653 | Smith | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040045705 | Gardner et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040084190 | Hill et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040129418 | Jee et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20050016730 | McMechan et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050126777 | Rolovic et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20060044156 | Adnan et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060102347 | Smith | May 2006 | A1 |
20060152383 | Yamate et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060157239 | Ramos et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20070126594 | Atkinson et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070137860 | Lovell et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20100018703 | Lovell et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2818656 | Oct 1979 | DE |
29816469 | Feb 1999 | DE |
0203249 | Dec 1986 | EP |
0853249 | Jul 1998 | EP |
2177231 | Jan 1987 | GB |
2275953 | Sep 1994 | GB |
2299868 | Oct 1996 | GB |
Entry |
---|
Wolfbeis et al., Fiber Optic Fluorosensor for Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide, Anal. Chem 60. p. 2028-2030, 1998. |
Maher et al., Journal of Testing and Evaluation, vol. 21, Issue 5, Sep. 1993. |
Esteban et al., Measurement of the Degree of Salinity of Water with a Fiber-Optic Sensor, Applied Optics, vol. 38, Issue 25, 5267-5271, Sep. 1999. |
Final Office Action issued in Related U.S. Appl. No. 11/135,314 dated Sep. 25, 2008, 8 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action issued in Related U.S. Appl. No. 11/135,314 dated Feb. 19, 2009, 9 pages. |
Notice of Allowance issued in Related U.S. Appl. No. 11/135,314 dated Jul. 7, 2009, 6 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action issued in Related U.S. Appl. No. 12/575,024 dated Aug. 4, 2010, 10 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action issued in Related U.S. Appl. No. 12/575,024 dated Feb. 22, 2012, 9 pages. |
Final Office Action issued in Related U.S. Appl. No. 12/575,024 dated Dec. 21, 2012, 11 pages. |
Examiner's Report issued in CA2,566,221 dated Oct. 3, 2011, 2 pages. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion issued in PCT/IB2005/051734 on Aug. 5, 2005, 7 pages. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion issued in PCT/US2010/050692 on Jun. 23, 2011. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20100084132 A1 | Apr 2010 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60575327 | May 2004 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 11135314 | May 2005 | US |
Child | 12569341 | US |