Boring or penetrating the earth – Bit or bit element – Rolling cutter bit or rolling cutter bit element
Reexamination Certificate
2000-02-01
2002-03-12
Dang, Hoang (Department: 3672)
Boring or penetrating the earth
Bit or bit element
Rolling cutter bit or rolling cutter bit element
C175S424000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06354387
ABSTRACT:
TECHNICAL FIELD
This invention relates to earth boring bits used in the oil, gas and mining industries, especially those having nozzle arrangements to prevent the cone teeth from “balling-up” with compacted cuttings from the earth.
BACKGROUND ART
Howard R. Hughes invented a drill bit with rolling cones used for drilling oil and gas wells, calling it a “rock bit” because it drilled from the outset with astonishing ease through the hard cap rock that overlaid the producing formation in the Spindletop Field near Beaumont, Tex. His bit was an instant success, said by some the most important invention that made rotary drilling for oil and gas commercially feasible the world over (U.S. Pat. No. 930,759, “Drill”, Aug. 10, 1909). More than any other, this invention transformed the economies of Texas and the United States into energy producing giants. But his invention was not perfect.
While Mr. Hughes' bit demolished rock with impressive speed, it struggled in the soft formations such as the shales around Beaumont and in the Gulf Coast of the United States. Shale cuttings sometimes compacted between the teeth of the “Hughes” bit, until it could no longer penetrate the earth. When pulled to the surface, the bit was often, as the drillers said, “balled up” with shale—sometimes until the cones could no longer turn. Even moderate balling-up slowed the drilling rate and caused generations of concern within Hughes' and his competitors' engineering organizations.
Creative and laborious efforts ensued for decades to solve the problem of bits “balling-up” in the softer formations, as reflected in the prior art patents. Impressive improvements resulted, including a bit with interfitting or intermeshing teeth in which circumferential rows of teeth on one cone rotate through opposed circumferential grooves, and between rows of teeth, on another cone. It provided open spaces on both sides of the inner row teeth and on the inside of the heel teeth. Material generated between the teeth was displaced into the open grooves, which were cleaned by the intermeshing rows of teeth. It was said, and demonstrated during drilling, “ . . . the teeth will act to clear each other of adhering material.” (Scott, U.S. Pat. No. 1,480,014, “Self-Cleaning Roller Drill”, Jan. 8, 1924.) This invention led to a two cone bit made by “ . . . cutting the teeth in circumferential rows spaced widely apart . . . ” This bit included “ . . . a series of long sharp chisels which do not dull for long periods.” The cones were true rolling cones with intermeshing rows of teeth, and one cone lacked a heel row. The self cleaning effect of intermeshing thus extended across the entire bit, a feature that would resist the tendency of the teeth becoming balled-up in soft formations. (Scott, U.S. Pat. No. 1,647,753, “Drill Cone”, Nov. 1, 1927.)
Interfitting teeth are shown for the first time on a three cone bit in U.S. Pat. No. 1,983,316. The most significant improvement was the width of the grooves between teeth, which were twice as wide as those on the two cone structure without increasing uncut bottom. This design also combines narrow interfitting inner row teeth with wide non-interfitting heel rows.
A further improvement in the design is shown in U.S. Pat. No. 2,333,746, in which the longest heel teeth were partially deleted, a feature that decreased balling and enhanced penetration rate. A refinement of the design was the replacement of the narrow inner teeth with fewer wide teeth, which again improved performance in shale drilling.
By now the basic design of the three cone bit was set: (1) All cones had intermeshing inner rows, (2) one cone had a heel row and a wide space or groove equivalent to the width of two rows between it and the first inner row with intermeshing teeth to keep it clean, (3) another cone had a heel row and a narrow space or groove equivalent to the width of a single row between it and the first inner row without intermeshing teeth, and (4) a third cone had a heel and first inner row in a closely spaced, staggered arrangement. A shortcoming of this design is the fact that it still leaves a relatively large portion of the cutting structure out of intermesh and subject to balling.
Another technique of cleaning the teeth of cuttings involved flushing drilling fluid or mud directly against the cones and teeth from nozzles in the bit body. Attention focused on the best pattern of nozzles and the direction of impingement of fluid against the teeth. Here, divergent views appeared, one inventor wanting fluid from the nozzles to “ . . . discharge in a direction approximately parallel with the taper of the cone” (Sherman, U.S. Pat. No. 2,104,823, “Cone Flushing Device”, Jan. 11, 1938), while another wanted drilling fluid discharged “ . . . approximately perpendicular to the base [heel] teeth of the cone.” (Payne, U.S. Pat. No. 2,192,693, “Wash Pipe”, Mar. 5, 1940.)
A development concluded after World War II seemed for a while to solve completely the old and recurrent problem of bit balling. A joint research effort of Humble Oil and Refining Company and Hughes Tool Company resulted in the “jet” bit. This bit was designed for use with high pressure pumps and bits with nozzles (or jets) that pointed high velocity drilling fluid between the cones and directly against the borehole bottom, with energy seemingly sufficient to quickly disperse shale cuttings, and simultaneously, keep the cones from balling-up because of the resulting highly turbulent flow condition between the cones. This development not only contributed to the reduction of bit balling, but also addressed another important phenomenon which become later known as chip holddown.
From almost the beginning, Hughes and his engineers recognized variances between the drilling phenomena experienced under atmospheric condition and those encountered deep in the earth. Rock at the bottom of a borehole is much more difficult to drill than the same rock brought to the surface of the earth. Model sized drilling simulators showed in the 1950's that removal of cuttings from the borehole bottom is impeded by the formation of a filter cake on the borehole bottom. “Laboratory Study Of Effect Of Overburden, Formation And Mud Column Pressures On Drilling Rate Of Permeable Formation”, R. A. Cunningham and J. G. Eenick, presented at the 33rd Annual Fall Meeting of the SPE, Houston, Tex., Oct. 5-8, 1958. While a filter cake formed from drilling mud is beneficial and essential in preventing sloughing of the wall of the hole, it also reduces drilling efficiencies. If there is a large difference between the borehole and formation pressure, also known as overbalance or differential pressure, this layer of mud mixes cuttings and fines from the bottom and forms a strong mesh-like layer between the cone and the formation, which keeps the cone teeth from reaching virgin rock. The problem is accentuated in deeper holes since both the mud weights and hydrostatic pressure are inherently higher. One approach to overcome this perplexing problem is the use of ever higher jet velocities in an attempt to blast through the filter cake and dislodge cuttings so they may be flushed through the well bore to the surface.
The filter cake problem and the bit balling problem are distinct since filter cake build up, also known as bottom balling, occurs mainly at greater depth with weighted muds, while cutting structure balling is more typical at shallow depths in more highly reactive shales. Yet, these problems can overlap in the same well since various formations and long distances must be drilled by the same bit. Inventors have not always made clear which of these problems they are addressing, at least not in their patents. However, a successful jet arrangement must deal with both problems; it must clean the cones but also impinge on bottom to overcome bottom balling.
The direction of the jet stream and the area of impact on the cones and borehole bottom receive periodic attention of inventors. Some interesting, if unsuccessful, approaches are disclosed in the patents. One patent p
Baker Brian A.
Berzas Sean K.
Harris Thomas M.
Ledgerwood, III Leroy W.
Wiesner Brian C.
Baker Hughes Incorporated
Bracewell & Patterson L.L.P.
Dang Hoang
LandOfFree
Nozzle orientation for roller cone rock bit does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Nozzle orientation for roller cone rock bit, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Nozzle orientation for roller cone rock bit will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2880100