Testing results
NeoTork has gone through extensive testing before field deployment. The outcome of those tests, including procedures, results and video footage are now publicly accessible.
Here are some of the completed tests
Surface Comparative Test (milling)
The steel cables are a critical component of NeoTork. We use only high yield cables (stronger than normal steel cables). This test verified the cables’ strength and the integrity of the connection between the thread coupling and the cable. The thread couplings are swaged on the cable; the quality of their crimping remains a routine systematic test during tool assembly.
Video: Surface Comparative Test (Milling)
Surface comparative test (drilling)
The test was conducted in an indoor facility on a closed loop system. To prepare for the test, we built two identical drilling samples. Rods, made up of different types of components, were set into the casings. The whole casing was then filled with cement (see drawing).
These two like-for-like samples were designed to correspond to extreme well environments; replicating changes in drilling conditions while progressing through different materials or weight loads.
The drilling parameters including; bit type, load, mud flow, etc. were all identical.
The test “without” NeoTork was interrupted after only 15 cm drilled due to extreme vibrations and constant stalling. The BHA with NeoTork drilled the full sample (about 90 cm) with all instances of stalling were related to debris hedging in the stab or the mill.
Test 1 Results
| Without | With | |
|---|---|---|
| Penetration in cm | 7 | 73 |
| Rate of Penetration cm/hr | 21 | 89 |
| Stall frequency ratio | 50 | 10 |
| Average Vertical Vibrations | 70 | 45 |
| Average Radial Vivrations | 68 | 39 |
Surface comparative test (plug milling)
This test was similar to test 1, except that the comparative drilling was done on an actual bridge plug set inside a casing. Our aim was to reproduce the milling of pressure plugs in a horizontal application as used in a shale development. As well as performance we also wanted to assess ROP and bit wear. Both drilling systems (identical except for NeoTork) were pushed to their limit to achieve maximum ROP.
The table below is explicit, however the difference in ROP doesn’t take into account what would occur in a normal field application. On the test bench, stalls are immediately detected and remedied within a few seconds, while in a field it could take up to an hour before drilling can resume.
NeoTork delivered a much smoother run with no stalling .The difference in the level of vibrations, noise, bit wear and cutting size was impressive. The assembly with NeoTork drilled effortlessly, whereas the system without NeoTork experienced continual hammering.
Test 2 Results
| Without | With | |
|---|---|---|
| Rate of Penetration cm/hr | 38 | 54 |
| Number of stall | 15 | 0 |
| Average Vertical Vibrations | 100 | 25 |
| Bit Wear % | 20 | 0 |
