Oil and gas wells are ordinarily completed by first cementing metallic casing stringers in the borehole. During the drilling, completion, and production phase, operators often find it useful to perform various remedial work, repair, or other maintenance in the casing string. For example, it is sometimes useful to cut and remove a section of a tubing string or well casing. During a typical cutting operation, it is generally desirable to stabilize the cutting tool so as to improve the efficiency of the cutting operation. Those of ordinary skill in the art will readily appreciate that improved efficiency results in a reduction of time and therefore a cost savings.
Numerous stabilizing and/or centralizing mechanisms are known in the art for use in downhole operations including drilling and workover operations. Such stabilizing mechanisms include, for example, mechanically and hydraulically actuated toggle mechanisms, spring actuated mechanisms, hydraulically actuated cam-driven or cone-driven mechanisms, hydraulically actuated piston mechanisms, as well as standard fixed blade stabilizing mechanisms. While various stabilizing mechanisms have been widely used in downhole operations, they are often not well suited for certain casing cutting operations.
For example, toggle mechanisms do not provide consistent stabilizing force. Toggle mechanisms are also prone to failure in service. Spring mechanisms are not well suited for cutting operations in that they tend to allow radial movement of the stabilized assembly which can negate (or partially negate) the stabilization. Radial piston assemblies, while capable of providing a suitable stabilizing force, are prone to catastrophic seal failure and tend to have geometric constraints. Moreover, piston mechanisms can damage the casing owing to the application of too much radial force. Cam-driven and cone-driven mechanisms also tend to be limited by geometric constraints, in particular by the amount of radial stroke that can be generated within a downhole assembly. Fixed blade (passive) stabilizers, commonly utilized in drilling operations, allow the axial translation, but do not generally provide adequate radial stabilization, especially as the blades wear over time. In particular, passive stabilizers have a built-in radial clearance that wears with time and allows for radial movement (and therefore vibration and oscillation that tends to reduce cutting efficiency and damage cutting tools). Hydraulic stabilization mechanisms may provide suitable radial stabilization but tend to have excessive clamping forces that do not allow for axial translation of the cutting tool during the cutting operation.
In one example embodiment of the present disclosure, a downhole radial stabilizer is provided for use in casing cutting operations. The stabilizer includes a radial expansion assembly deployed about and configured to rotate substantially freely with respect to a tool mandrel. The radial expansion assembly includes at least one stabilizer block configured to extend radially outward from the mandrel into contact with a wellbore casing string. The stabilizer block may be deployed between uphole and downhole cones and includes a plurality of angled splines configured to engage corresponding splines in the cones. As such, relative axial motion between the stabilizer block and the cones causes a corresponding radial extension or retraction of the block. The stabilizer block is hydraulically actuated.
Example embodiments disclose several technical features. For example, one or more embodiments of the present disclosure provide for improved radial stabilization as compared to passive stabilizers and therefore tend to improve the efficiency and reliability of casing cutting operations. Additional features can include a reduction in the time to complete the cutting operation and a reduction in cutter wear. Example stabilizer embodiments in accordance with the present disclosure may also be configured to provide for axial slippage (translation) during the casing cutting operation while at the same time providing suitable radial stabilization. Such axial slippage is highly useful when the stabilizer is used in combination with a wing-type casing cutter.
An embodiment of the present disclosure includes a downhole stabilizer. The downhole stabilizer further includes a tool body configured for coupling with a downhole tool string. The tool body is arranged and designed, or otherwise configured, with an axial through bore and a mandrel. A first cone is deployed about the mandrel and includes at least one first cone recess having a set of first cone splines in at least one axial wall of the first cone recess. A second cone is deployed about the mandrel and includes at least one second cone recess having a set of second cone splines in at least one axial wall of the second cone recess. At least one stabilizer block is deployed axially between the first and second cones and is carried in the first and second recesses. The stabilizer block includes at least two sets of stabilizer block splines on at least one lateral face/side thereof. A first of the sets of stabilizer block splines compliments and engages the set of first cone splines and a second of the sets of stabilizer block splines compliments and engages the set of second cone splines. The sets of first cone, second cone and stabilizer block splines are angled with respect to a longitudinal axis of the tool body such that axial translation of the second cone with respect to the first cone either radially extends or retracts the stabilizer block. In another embodiment of the present disclosure, a string of downhole tools, e.g., a casing cutting tool and the aforementioned stabilizer, may be provided.
The foregoing has outlined rather broadly the features and technical aspects of one or more embodiments of the present disclosure in order that the detailed description that follows may be better understood. Additional features and aspects of embodiments of the present disclosure will be described hereinafter which form the subject of at least some of the claims. It should be appreciated by those skilled in the art that the conception and the specific embodiments disclosed may be readily utilized as a basis for modifying or designing other structures for carrying out the same purposes of the embodiments disclosed herein. It should also be realized by those skilled in the art that such equivalent constructions do not depart from the spirit and scope of the present disclosure.
For a more complete understanding of embodiments of the present disclosure, reference is now made to the following descriptions taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings, in which:
Referring to
Radial stabilizer 200 further includes a radial expansion assembly 250 deployed about the mandrel 220. The expansion assembly 250 includes a plurality of stabilization blocks 260 that are deployed between uphole 270 and downhole 280 cones in corresponding axial slots 272, 282 formed in the cones. The blocks 260 are configured to extend radially outward into contact with the casing when drilling fluid is pumped through a central bore of the tool body 210 and to retract radially inward when the drilling fluid pressure is reduced below a predetermined threshold, as described in more detail below. The radial expansion assembly 250 is configured to generally remain rotationally stationary with respect to the wellbore, while the tool body 210 and other tool components are configured to rotate with the tool string.
A piston 290 is deployed axially between the downhole cone 280 and a shoulder 214 of the tool body 210. The piston 290 is connected to body 210 via circumferentially spaced pins 292 which engage corresponding elongated grooves 216 formed in the body 210. Engagement of the pins 292 with the grooves 216 rotationally fixes the piston 290 to the tool body 210 (such that they rotate together) while allowing the piston 290 to reciprocate axially with respect to the tool body 210. The piston 290 and downhole cone 280 are connected to one another via snap ring 294 (
Expansion assembly 250 is secured to the mandrel 220 via retainer 310 and cap 312. The retainer 310 and uphole cone 270 are connected to one another via snap ring 314 (
Expansion assembly 250 further includes an internal compression spring 255 deployed axially between radial bearings 252 and 254. Compression spring 255 is configured to bias the radial bearings 252 and 254 into contact with internal shoulders 278 and 288 (
As shown in
Splines 262 are sized and shaped to engage corresponding splines 274 formed in recess 272 of uphole cone 270. Splines 264 are sized and shaped to engage corresponding splines 284 in recess 282 of downhole cone 280. Interconnection between the splines 262 and 264 formed on the block 260 and the splines 274 and 284 formed on the cones 270 and 280 increases the surface area of contact between the block 260 and the cones 270 and 280 thereby typically providing a robust structure suitable for downhole stabilizing operations. By being angled, the splines 262, 264, 274, and 284 are not parallel with a longitudinal axis of the tool 200. Thus, relative axial motion between block 260 and cones 270 and 280 causes a corresponding radial extension or retraction of the block 260.
With continue reference to
It will be readily understood by those skilled in the art that other stabilizer design parameters may also be selected so as to tune the clamping force. By way of example and not limitation, the clamping force is influenced by the hydraulic force generated to move the one or more stabilizer blocks, the contact area of the stabilizer block, and the length of the stroke and the force used to initiate and complete the cut. In order to obtain an optimum clamping force for any particular cutting operation, the stabilizer design may be evaluated and optimized to obtain the desired force (or range of forces). The evaluation may include, for example, the generated hydraulic force applied to the one or more blocks, the component of the force applied to the cutters, and/or the frictional force between the stabilizer blocks and the casing. The claims and present disclosure are, of course, not limited to the aforementioned examples.
Actuation and deactuation of stabilizer 200 is now described in more detail with respect to
Upon deploying the tool string at a desired location, the stabilization blocks 260 may be hydraulically actuated so as to radially stabilize the tool string in the wellbore. Such actuation may be initiated via the introduction of drilling fluid pressure to through bore 221 (e.g., via operation of mud pumps located at the surface). Fluid pressure is communicated to internal surface 297 of piston 290 via ports 227 formed in the mandrel 220. The fluid pressure urges the piston 290 and the downhole cone 280 in the uphole direction (i.e., towards uphole cone 270) against the spring bias. Translation of the downhole cone 280 in the uphole direction causes the expandable blocks to extend radially outward via engagement of splines 262 and 264 with splines 274 and 284. The blocks 260 are fully extended when downhole cone 280 contacts uphole cone 270 as depicted on
While the example embodiments of a radially expandable stabilizer are usable in combination with a conventional wing-type casing cutter (e.g., as depicted on
Although embodiments of the present disclosure have been described in detail, it should be understood that various changes, substitutions, and alterations may be made herein without departing from the spirit and scope of the disclosure as defined by the appended claims.
This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/218,159, filed Aug. 25, 2011 and titled “HYDRAULIC STABILIZER FOR USE WITH A DOWNHOLE CASING CUTTER,” which application is expressly incorporated herein by this reference in its entirety.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3098534 | Carr et al. | Jul 1963 | A |
3370657 | Antle | Feb 1968 | A |
3376927 | Brown | Apr 1968 | A |
3489211 | Kammerer | Jan 1970 | A |
4776394 | Lynde et al. | Oct 1988 | A |
4834185 | Braddick | May 1989 | A |
4842082 | Springer | Jun 1989 | A |
5150755 | Cassel et al. | Sep 1992 | A |
5265675 | Hearn et al. | Nov 1993 | A |
5456312 | Lynde et al. | Oct 1995 | A |
5732770 | Beeman | Mar 1998 | A |
5836406 | Schuh | Nov 1998 | A |
6241017 | Doane et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6453998 | Reeve | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6679328 | Davis et al. | Jan 2004 | B2 |
6935423 | Kusmer | Aug 2005 | B2 |
7178589 | Campbell et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7377328 | Dewey et al. | May 2008 | B2 |
7448446 | Campbell et al. | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7493971 | Nevlud | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7891441 | Lee | Feb 2011 | B2 |
8887798 | Simson et al. | Nov 2014 | B2 |
20050194151 | Dewey et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20060207797 | Dewey et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20070181298 | Sheiretov et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20100288491 | Cochran et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20120325480 | Schmidt et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20130048287 | Simson et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2844399 | Dec 2006 | CN |
Entry |
---|
International Search Report and Written Opinion of the ISA; dated Jan. 18, 2013; PCT/US2012/052201, 10 pages. |
European Search Report issued in related EP application 12825557.7 on Feb. 16, 2016, 3 pages. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20150053391 A1 | Feb 2015 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 13218159 | Aug 2011 | US |
Child | 14530241 | US |