Notes from the Field

I wish to remind the reader that the national labs, especially the weapons labs, have a long history of trying to apply their assets, predominately material science and computer science capabilities, to problems in the hydrocarbon industry. They have been successful at times, not so successful at other times, with failures coming in science and engineering—and in politics.

Research directed toward the hydrocarbon industry, especially in drilling, seismic imaging, and hydraulic fracturing, has been of ongoing interest at the weapons laboratories (Sandia, Los Alamos, Livermore) for a long time. In one case, an "initiative" was spawned by someone seeing the huge, fast, expensive computers used in weapons research (e.g., the Hunter Initiative morphed into the Advanced Computing Technology Initiative [ACTI]). This effort continued, as government projects will, first as the Oil Recovery Technology Partnership and then the National Gas and Oil Partnership (NGOP).

In the early programs (the Hunter Initiative and ACTI), money went outside to universities as well as the national labs with a painful redirection of Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science (Geosciences Program) monies, whereas the later programs (ORTP, NGOP) were funded by DOE's Office of Fossil Energy directly to the weapons labs—universities could not participate. However, when research was conducted inside the weapons labs, they demonstrated that their assets and expertise were being put to "dual use" for the good of the nation. However, during the ACTI program, seismic contractors were not so sure. They objected to public funds being used to process seismic data in competition with themselves. The criticism was especially sharp when the price of oil was in the $10 to $15 per barrel range, forcing the seismic business to a very low level. DOE moved to blunt that criticism in the Gas and Oil Partnership by placing industry in an advisory position—personnel from the majors, independents, and contractors voted on which technologies, proposed by both science and weapons laboratories, they wished to see improved.

In other cases, work began in the geothermal arena where one could easily show that the private sector could not support the necessary level of research. Some of that work moved into the hydrocarbons domain (e.g., downhole, pneumatic seismic source, hydrofrac imaging methods). Today, imaging of hydraulic fractures by locating the myriad of tiny seismic events caused by the fracture is a major business in reservoir development and production work. Although the principles of that technology stem from conventional earthquake location methodology, the practical application on a massive scale can be attributed to Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL).

Both Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) and LANL have conducted research to advance drilling technology, with LANL eliminating the drill bit completely by melting the rock. SNL tried a "chain drill bit" to eliminate the expensive, time-consuming changing of worn-out bits. The only successful research effort has been the polycrystalline diamond (PDC) drill bit work described in Falcone and Bjornstad's paper.

Now, under the heading of unintended consequences, I would like to describe two surprises in the field use of the PDC bit. The PDC bit is quieter than the roller cone bit, that is, it generates less seismic energy. A complete seismic method (Poletto & Miranda, 2004) has been developed using this "noise" as a signal (seismic while drilling [SWD]). This technique images ahead of the bit, and in real time places the drill bit in its correct position in the conventional surface seismic image. However, if the client is using a PDC bit, especially in Gulf Coast sediments, and generally in shales, SWD cannot be used.

The flip side of that phenomenon also exists. In an active oil and gas field, drilling is taking place somewhere in the field nearly all the time. Frequently, seismic imaging efforts are being attempted, simultaneously, somewhere in the same field. Recently, I was taking part in such an imaging effort (hydrofrac imaging) while a new hole was being drilled approximately 1,000 feet away. Fortunately, they were using a PDC bit, and even though our seismic receivers were at the same depth as the nearby drill bit, it was quiet enough to continue...