The field of this invention is tools run downhole preferably on cable and which operate with on board power to perform a downhole function and more particularly wellbore debris cleanup.
It is a common practice to plug wells and to have encroachment of water into the wellbore above the plug.
There are many techniques developed to remove debris from wellbores and a good survey article that reviews many of these procedures is SPE 113267 Published June 2008 by Li, Misselbrook and Seal entitled Sand Cleanout with Coiled Tubing: Choice of Process, Tools or Fluids? There are limits to which techniques can be used with low pressure formations. Techniques that involve pressurized fluid circulation present risk of fluid loss into a low pressure formation from simply the fluid column hydrostatic pressure that is created when the well is filled with fluid and circulated or jetted. The productivity of the formation can be adversely affected should such flow into the formation occur. As an alternative to liquid circulation, systems involving foam have been proposed with the idea being that the density of the foam is so low that fluid losses will not be an issue. Instead, the foam entrains the sand or debris and carries it to the surface without the creation of a hydrostatic head on the low pressure formation in the vicinity of the plug. The downside of this technique is the cost of the specialized foam equipment and the logistics of getting such equipment to the well site in remote locations.
Various techniques of capturing debris have been developed. Some involve chambers that have flapper type valves that allow liquid and sand to enter and then use gravity to allow the flapper to close trapping in the sand. The motive force can be a chamber under vacuum that is opened to the collection chamber downhole or the use of a reciprocating pump with a series of flapper type check valves. These systems can have operational issues with sand buildup on the seats for the flappers that keep them from sealing and as a result some of the captured sand simply escapes again. Some of these one shot systems that depend on a vacuum chamber to suck in water and sand into a containment chamber have been run in on wireline. Illustrative of some of these debris cleanup devices are U.S. Pat. No. 6,196,319 (wireline); U.S. Pat. No. 5,327,974 (tubing run); U.S. Pat. No. 5,318,128 (tubing run); U.S. Pat. No. 6,607,607 (coiled tubing); U.S. Pat. No. 4,671,359 (coiled tubing); U.S. Pat. No. 6,464,012 (wireline); U.S. Pat. No. 4,924,940 (rigid tubing) and U.S. Pat. No. 6,059,030 (rigid tubing).
The reciprocation debris collection systems also have the issue of a lack of continuous flow which promotes entrained sand to drop when flow is interrupted. Another issue with some tools for debris removal is a minimum diameter for these tools keeps them from being used in very small diameter wells. Proper positioning is also an issue. With tools that trap sand from flow entering at the lower end and run in on coiled tubing there is a possibility of forcing the lower end into the sand where the manner of kicking on the pump involves setting down weight such as in U.S. Pat. No. 6,059,030. On the other hand, especially with the one shot vacuum tools, being too high in the water and well above the sand line will result in minimal capture of sand.
What is needed is a debris removal tool that can be quickly deployed such as by slickline and can be made small enough to be useful in small diameter wells while at the same time using a debris removal technique that features effective capture of the sand and preferably a continuous fluid circulation while doing so. A modular design can help with carrying capacity in small wells and save trips to the surface to remove the captured sand. Other features that maintain fluid velocity to keep the sand entrained and further employ centrifugal force in aid of separating the sand from the circulating fluid are also potential features of the present invention. Those skilled in the art will have a better idea of the various aspects of the invention from a review of the detailed description of the preferred embodiment and the associated drawings, while recognizing that the full scope of the invention is determined by the appended claims.
One of the issues with introduction of bottom hole assemblies into a wellbore is how to advance the assembly when the well is deviated to the point where the force of gravity is insufficient to assure further progress downhole. Various types of propulsion devices have been devised but are either not suited for slickline application or not adapted to advance a bottom hole assembly through a deviated well. Some examples of such designs are U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,392,859; 7,325,606; 7,152,680; 7,121,343; 6,945,330; 6,189,621 and 6,397,946. US Publication 2009/0045975 shows a tractor that is driven on a slickline where the slickline itself has been advanced into a wellbore by the force of gravity from the weight of the bottom hole assembly.
A wellbore cleanup tool is run on slickline. It has an onboard power supply and circulation pump. Inlet flow is at the lower end into an inlet pipe that keeps up fluid velocity. The inlet pipe opens to a surrounding annular volume for sand containment and the fluid continues through a screen and into the pump for eventual exhaust back into the water in the wellbore. A modular structure is envisioned to add debris carrying capacity. Various ways to energize the device are possible. Other tools run on slickline are described such as a cutter, a scraper and a shifting tool.
While a cable or slickline 28 is preferred because it is a low cost way to rapidly get the tool 26 into the water 20, a wireline can also be used and surface power through the wireline can replace the onboard battery 34. The control system can be configured in different ways. In one version it can be a time delay energized at the surface so that the tool 26 will have enough time to be lowered into the water 20 before motor 36 starts running. Another way to actuate the motor 36 is to use a switch that is responsive to being immersed in water to complete the power delivery circuit. This can be a float type switch akin to a commode fill up valve or it can use the presence of water or other well fluids to otherwise complete a circuit. Since it is generally known at what depth the plug 18 has been set, the tool 26 can be quickly lowered to the approximate vicinity and then its speed reduced to avoid getting the lower end buried in the sand 24. The control system can also incorporate a flow switch to detect plugging in the debris tool 40 and shut the pump 38 to avoid ruining it or burning up the motor 36 if the pump 38 plugs up or stops turning for any reason. Other aspects of the control system 32 can include the ability to transmit electromagnetic or pressure wave signals through the wellbore or the slickline 28 such information such as the weight or volume of collected debris, for example.
Referring now to
As shown in
Various options are contemplated. The tool 40 can be triggered to start when sensing the top of the layer of debris, or by depth in the well from known markers, or simply on a time delay basis. Movement uphole of a predetermined distance can shut the pump 38 off. This still allows the slickline operator to move up and down when reaching the debris so that he knows he's not stuck. The tool can include a vibrator to help fluidize the debris as an aid to getting it to move into the inlet 50. The pump 38 can be employed to also create vibration by eccentric mounting of its impeller. The pump can also be a turbine style or a progressive cavity type pump.
The tool 40 has the ability to provide continuous circulation which not only improves its debris removal capabilities but can also assist when running in or pulling out of the hole to reduce chances of getting the tool stuck.
While the preferred tool is a debris catcher, other tools can be run in on cable or slickline and have an on board power source for accomplishing other downhole operations.
When the proper depth is reached and the anchor assemblies 116 get a firm grip on the tubular 118 to resist torque from cutting, the motor 120 is started to slowly extend the cutters 136 while the housing 124 is being driven by gear 126. When the cutters 136 engage the tubular 118 the cutting action begins. As the housing 124 rotates to cut the blades are slowly advanced radially into the tubular 118 to increase the depth of the cut. Controls can be added to regulate the cutting action. They controls can be as simple as providing fixed speeds for the housing 124 rotation and the cutter 136 extension so that the radial force on the cutter 136 will not stall the motor 120. Knowing the thickness of the tubular 118 the control package 104 can trigger the motor 120 to reverse when the cutters 136 have radially extended enough to cut through the tubular wall 118. Alternatively, the amount of axial movement of the housing 130 can be measured or the number of turns of the ball screw 128 can be measured by the control package 104 to detect when the tubular 118 should be cut all the way through. Other options can involve a sensor on the cutter 136 that can optically determine that the tubular 118 has been cut clean through. Reversing rotation on motors 108 and 120 will allow the cutters 136 to retract and the anchors 116 to retract for a fast trip out of the well using the slickline 102.
In another arrangement, as illustrated in
The above description is illustrative of the preferred embodiment and many modifications may be made by those skilled in the art without departing from the invention whose scope is to be determined from the literal and equivalent scope of the claims below:
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
1852920 | Combs | Apr 1932 | A |
3981364 | Warner et al. | Sep 1976 | A |
4083401 | Rankin | Apr 1978 | A |
4392377 | Rankin | Jul 1983 | A |
4476925 | Cox | Oct 1984 | A |
4671359 | Renfro | Jun 1987 | A |
4694901 | Skinner | Sep 1987 | A |
4921577 | Eubank | May 1990 | A |
4924940 | Burroughs et al. | May 1990 | A |
5050682 | Huber et al. | Sep 1991 | A |
5095993 | Huber et al. | Mar 1992 | A |
5280825 | Cholet | Jan 1994 | A |
5295537 | Trainer | Mar 1994 | A |
5314018 | Cobb | May 1994 | A |
5318128 | Johnson et al. | Jun 1994 | A |
5327974 | Donovan et al. | Jul 1994 | A |
5392856 | Broussard, Jr. et al. | Feb 1995 | A |
5553669 | Trainer | Sep 1996 | A |
RE35454 | Cobb | Feb 1997 | E |
5649603 | Simpson et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
5662167 | Patterson et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5810081 | Cobb et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5819848 | Rasmuson et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
6026911 | Angle et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6059030 | Celestine | May 2000 | A |
6062315 | Reinhardt | May 2000 | A |
6189617 | Sorhus et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6189621 | Vail, III | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6196319 | Henskens et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6276452 | Davis et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6343649 | Beck et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6359569 | Beck et al. | Mar 2002 | B2 |
6397946 | Vail, III | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6405798 | Barrett et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6464012 | Strickland | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6481505 | Beck et al. | Nov 2002 | B2 |
6497280 | Beck et al. | Dec 2002 | B2 |
6588505 | Beck et al. | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6607607 | Walker et al. | Aug 2003 | B2 |
6619390 | Kellett, III | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6695058 | French | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6729407 | Stoesz | May 2004 | B2 |
6745839 | Simpson | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6920936 | Sheiretov et al. | Jul 2005 | B2 |
6923871 | Walker et al. | Aug 2005 | B2 |
6945330 | Wilson et al. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6978841 | Hoffman et al. | Dec 2005 | B2 |
7051810 | Clemens et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7080701 | Bloom et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7111677 | St. Clair | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7121343 | Telfer | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7143843 | Doering et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7152680 | Wilson et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7182025 | Ghorbel et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7188675 | Reynolds | Mar 2007 | B2 |
7222682 | Doering et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
7325606 | Vail, III et al. | Feb 2008 | B1 |
7377283 | Walker et al. | May 2008 | B2 |
7387165 | Lopez de Cardenas et al. | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7392859 | Mock et al. | Jul 2008 | B2 |
7472745 | Lynde et al. | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7607497 | Mock et al. | Oct 2009 | B2 |
7610957 | Davis et al. | Nov 2009 | B2 |
7655096 | Walker et al. | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7661489 | Fyfe | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7874366 | Allcorn et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
7878242 | Gray | Feb 2011 | B2 |
20010013410 | Beck et al. | Aug 2001 | A1 |
20010013411 | Beck et al. | Aug 2001 | A1 |
20010042617 | Beck et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010043146 | Beck et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20030173076 | Sheiretov et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030196952 | Kampfen | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20050034874 | Guerrero et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050126791 | Barbee et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050217861 | Misselbrook | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050247488 | Mock et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050263325 | Doering et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060108117 | Telfer | May 2006 | A1 |
20060201716 | Bloom et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20070251687 | Martinez et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070272411 | Lopez de Cardenas et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20080029276 | Templeton et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080308318 | Moore | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090008152 | Mock et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090045975 | Evans et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090200012 | Davis et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090301723 | Gray | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100096187 | Storm et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100163251 | Mock et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100258289 | Lynde et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100258293 | Lynde et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100258296 | Lynde et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100258297 | Lynde | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100258298 | Lynde et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100263856 | Lynde et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100288501 | Fielder et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20110048702 | Jacob | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110056692 | Lopez de Cardenas et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110162835 | Gray | Jul 2011 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
9324728 | Dec 1993 | WO |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20100258296 A1 | Oct 2010 | US |