1
Slimhole vs. Microhole Future of EP
2005 SPE ATCE Slimhole Drilling Session Roy
Long Oil EP Technology Manager October 10, 2005
National Energy Technology Laboratory-SCNGO
Office of Fossil Energy
2
Microhole vs Slimhole A Technical Comparison
Microhole
Slimhole

• Hole Size
• Exit 4-1/2" casing
• 4?" 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 lt 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

3
MHT Programs Singular GoalGreater 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
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 Vulture CTD Project Example
BP Alaska 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
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
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 RMOTCEstablish
Potential of Deep VSP Using Microholes
14
Status of National Lab Designer SeismicWork 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 TechnologiesVSP
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 RiskGeoprober
Drilling Rig 27 m derrick, 200 tonnes Heave comp
120 tonnes, 4.8m
Anaconda CT Unit
Reel A 4" OD Reel B 3?" OD
DP 3 Vessel
7?" Drill-in casing/riser
Workclass ROV Launched over the stern provides
backup subsea controls
Acoustic controls
Shut-off system
BHA
18
Fast Sidetracks to Check Geological Model
ddd
ddd
Appraisal
Appraisal
7
-
5/8

Casing
7
?"
Casing
Casing
5
-
1/2

Casing
5¾"
19
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 DriversCongressional
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 EPTechnology Currently Used
State-of-the-Art Rigs, but gt50-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 gt850 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
Tomorrows Potential Benefits fromPad/Modular
Drilling

• Reduced EP 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
httpwww.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