1 / 27

Slimhole vs. Microhole: Future of E&P

Slimhole vs. Microhole: Future of E&P. 2005 SPE ATCE Slimhole Drilling Session Roy Long Oil E&P Technology Manager October 10, 2005. National Energy Technology Laboratory-SCNGO. Office of Fossil Energy. Hole Size Exit 4-1/2 " casing 4 ⅛" or 3 ¾" typical 2 ¾" sidetrack & inst.

mantreh-laleh
Download Presentation

Slimhole vs. Microhole: Future of E&P

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Slimhole vs. Microhole: Future of E&P 2005 SPE ATCE Slimhole Drilling Session Roy Long Oil E&P Technology Manager October 10, 2005 National Energy Technology Laboratory-SCNGO Office of Fossil Energy

  2. Hole Size Exit 4-1/2" casing 4⅛" or 3¾" typical 2¾" sidetrack & inst. Rig: Hybrid CT Instrumentation CT Weaknesses CTD rig cost Shallow (5,000-7,000') use to date Limited small-motor use Strengths Small hole = Lower cost Lower cost = Lower risk Smaller footprint Hole Size 90% of hole < 7" Any ~6" prod. int. typical Rig: Rotary Special rotary: SHADS Weaknesses Kick tolerance Variable economics over conventional Industry paradigms Strengths Small hole = Lower cost Lower cost = Lower risk Smaller footprint Microhole vs Slimhole: A Technical Comparison Microhole Slimhole

  3. MHT Program’s “Singular Goal”:Greater Mature Domestic Oil Resource Recovery • 407 billion barrels not economically recoverable with current technology • 218 billion barrels from shallow development alone  Conservative recovery estimate = 10 years of OPEC imports offset Source: EIA, 1997; USGS, 1995; IPAA, 1998; Intek, Inc., 1998

  4. MHT Program High-Level Drivers • Essential: Significantly lower reservoir access cost • Rapid mob/demob • Capable of using existing wellbores/infrastructure • Cost-effective laterals/multi-laterals from main boreto include 4½" casing • Reference BP/Conoco Alaska experience • Fixed day-rate/ More completed wells per week • High penetration rate (ROP) drilling assemblies w/CT • Shallow resource allows new high ROP technologies • Smaller drilling footprint for “Wal-Mart” approach • Minimize landowner interference with large drilling campaign • Effective approach for tight, complex reservoirs • Cost-effective seismic for complex reservoirs • New approaches required utilizing VSP • “Designer Seismic”

  5. Systems Engineering: “…the art and science of creating optimal system solutions to complex issues and problems.” - Prof. Derek Hitchins Microhole Technologies System ModelShallow, Uneconomic Oil and Gas Resource Development Diagram and quotes from Prof. Hitchens’ website at http://www.hitchins.net

  6. MHT Program Focus Areas Technologies to Support Business Models for: • Development of Shallow (≤5,000'), Currently Uneconomic Oil and Gas Resources • Core Program: Current Industry Solicitations • Cost-Effective Seismic Methodologies for Improved Reservoir Imaging (Designer Seismic) • VSP using MEMS Technologies plus Very Low-Cost Instrumentation Drilling • Ongoing National Lab Work at RMOTC • Longer Term: Reduced-Risk Exploration with Low Environmental Impact for Greater Access • Offshore Demonstration with Geoprober award in MHT II Solicitation

  7. First Highly Efficient Hybrid CT RigBuilt and Operating on U.S. Soil Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission 2005 Operator of the Year Nominee World Oil Awards 2005 New Horizons Nominee About 300,000 feet of hole in 7 months Photo courtesy Tom Gipson, Advanced Drilling Technologies, LLC

  8. MHT Awards(See: www.microtech.thepttc.org)

  9. PTTC: Following Industry ActivityUsing Microhole Technologies BP Alaska Example BP Vulture CTD Project Example Cleveland SampleRe-entry Well Diagram Diagrams courtesy BP and Orbis Engineering

  10. MHT Program Focus Areas Technologies to Support Business Models for: • Development of Shallow (≤5,000'), Currently Uneconomic Oil and Gas Resources • Core Program: Current Solicitations for Industry • Cost-Effective Seismic Methodologies for Improved Reservoir Imaging (Designer Seismic) • VSP using MEMS Technologies plus Very Low-Cost Instrumentation Drilling • Ongoing National Lab Work at RMOTC • Longer Term: Reduced-Risk Exploration with Low Environmental Impact for Greater Access • Offshore Demonstration with Geoprober award in MHT II Solicitation

  11. Micro-Electromechanical Systems (MEMS) Microhole Technologies for Imaging(from Initial LANL MHT Investigations) Micro Drill Rig Field DeployedMEMS Geophone Array Relative Borehole Sizes • Wellbore 1/20th that of a typical rig; will cost about 90% less • Lower environmental impact; 20% reduction in drilling fluids and cuttings • Changes the way we explore for and produce oil and gas

  12. Weathered Zone Deep Targets Possible Results of Successful RMOTC MHT Work:– Improved EOR using “Designer Seismic” with VSP– Long-Term Passive Seismic for Low-Impact Exploration Note: Modified from Kinder Morgan CO2 LP Company

  13. Basis of Imaging Work at RMOTC:Establish Potential of Deep VSP Using Microholes

  14. Long -Term Monitoring: Possible Future of E&P Status of National Lab ‘Designer Seismic’Work at RMOTC • Microholes and VSP Data Acquisition Completed October 2004 • Phase II - FY05, August • Drill 3-4 new Microholesacross fault (LANL) • Set microgeophone-baseddata acquisition system (LBNL) • Acquire active VSP seismic high-res image (LBNL) • Initiate passive-seismic investigation (U. of Wyoming)

  15. Progression of Game-Changing Technologies:VSP Long-Term Monitoring Potential(From Existing LBNL Seismic Network) (Stark, 1992)

  16. MHT Program Focus Areas Technologies to Support Business Models for: • Development of Shallow (≤5,000'), Currently Uneconomic Oil and Gas Resources • Core Program: Current Solicitations for Industry • Cost-Effective Seismic Methodologies for Improved Reservoir Imaging (Designer Seismic) • VSP using MEMS Technologies plus Very Low-Cost Instrumentation Drilling • Ongoing National Lab Work at RMOTC • Longer Term: Reduced-Risk Exploration with Low Environmental Impact for Greater Access • Offshore Demonstration with Geoprober award in MHT II Solicitation

  17. Reducing Offshore Risk:Geoprober Drilling Rig 27 m derrick, 200 tonnes Heave comp 120 tonnes, 4.8m Anaconda CT Unit Reel A 4" OD Reel B 3⅛" OD DP 3 Vessel 7⅝" Drill-in casing/riser Workclass ROV Launched over the stern; provides backup subsea controls Acoustic controls Shut-off system BHA

  18. • • Drill & update earth model Drill & update earth model • • Pause frequently to take a VSP Pause frequently to take a VSP check shot (with CT drilling tool) check shot (with CT drilling tool) • • Continuously re Continuously re - - calibrate calibrate depths/ TWT depths/ TWT • • Early Early decision to sidetrack to decision to sidetrack to new objective (Blue) & Test new objective (Blue) & Test • • Plug back & sidetrack (Green) Plug back & sidetrack (Green) Fast Sidetracks to Check Geological Model ddd ddd Appraisal Appraisal 7 7 ⅝" - 5/8 ” Casing Casing Casing 5 5¾" - 1/2 ” Casing

  19. Actual Cost Need for Offshore Risk Reduction Ultra-Deep GOM Well Cost ~60% More Than AFE $Million 10 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 12 Ave. AFE - $44MM Ave. AFE - $44 million Ave. Cost - $71 million 14 Pre-drill AFE 16 18 TD, 1,000 Ft. BML 20 22 24 26 28 ConocoPhillips DEA Presentation, 1st Quarter 2004

  20. Increasing Environmental Drivers:Congressional Testimony Summary “Proven technologies exist that could help lessen the direct environmental impacts illustrated by the Jonah example, but for a variety of reasons these are not being applied. I urge you to work with industry, land-management agencies, and the environmental community to find mutually agreeable ways to better deploy these technologies…” Environmental Testimony by Sky Truth Given to House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, September 17, 2003

  21. Rocky Mountain E&PTechnology Currently Used State-of-the-Art Rigs, but… >50-Year-Old Environmental Footprint

  22. Jonah Field: 1986, Prior to Development

  23. Jonah Field: 2002, 40-Acre Spacing Currently more than 400 wells Application for 20-acre spacing = >850 new wells

  24. Future MHT Applications?Enabling Extended-Reach Drilling and Environmental Access via Pad Drilling

  25. Economically ApproachingZero Site Environmental Impact “Onshore Mobile Platform: A Modular Platform for Drilling and Production Operations in Remote and Environmentally Sensitive Areas” SPE Paper #87140 Photo courtesy of Anadarko

  26. Tomorrow’s Potential Benefits fromPad/Modular Drilling • Reduced E&P Risk • Smaller Development Cost • Lower Environmental Risk: Reduced Shutdown Periods • Increased Efficiency in Production Operations • Improved Access to Culturally and Environmentally Sensitive Areas Through Better Technology

  27. More Information/Questions Microhole Integration Meetings Be Watching PTTC – http:www.pttc.org First Meeting: August 17, 2005 Last Meeting: November 16, 2005 Next Meeting: March 22, 2006 www.netl.doe.gov www.fossil.energy.gov DOE Fossil Energy

More Related