SPE 104223

Lasers: The Next Bit

Shahvir Pooniwala, SPE, Maharashtra Inst. of Technology

Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting held in
Canton, Ohio, U.S.A., 1113 October 2006.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Since the early twentieth century rotary drilling has
revolutionized the procedure of extraction of crude oil
replacing conventional methods like cable tool drilling.
However with the advent of new technology it is time to look
at future alternative, more efficient drilling methods.
This paper acts as an eye opener to the feasibility of using
laser drilling over modern currently used drilling techniques.
The design and operation of a new laser-mechanical bit is
put forth by the medium of this paper. This innovative bit
shows probability of reducing rig time and increasing
efficiency in drilling.
The possible changes to be implemented in the present day
drill string due to incorporation of this new bit is accounted for
and an analysis of the possible advantages and disadvantages
of this bit if implemented is also highlighted.

Introduction
Rotary drilling has been widely used for extraction, in most of
the oil fields in various parts of the world for more than a
century. During this period many alternatives drilling
techniques have been suggested, worked upon and tried so as
to reduce the time and increase the efficiency of drilling.
These techniques include the use of niche technology with
tools commonly known as novel devices. This category of
devices includes Water jets, Electron Beams, Cavitating Jets,
Electric arcs, Plasmas and Lasers to name a few. In
comparison with all the above devices, laser drilling if
developed has shown the potential to be a futuristic advanced
tool that will revamp the conventional rotary drilling system.
LASER basically is an acronym for Light Amplification
by Stimulated Emission of Radiation. It is basically a device
which converts energy in one form to electromagnetic
radiation beams (photons). These photons are basically
produced due to the returning of atoms to their lower energy

state after their excitation to higher energy states. When this

happens a photon is released. This high energy coherent light
radiation can be focused to form intense high powered beams
which can be used to fragment, melt or vaporize rocks
depending on the input power, type of laser, adjusted focal
length and interaction characteristics of the laser with the
particular rock type. The other major laser parameters include
discharge method (pulsed or continuous), wavelength, exposed
time, pulse width, repetition rate, average power and peak
power. These parameters determine the effective energy
transfer to the rock.
Lasers are currently being used as a potent tool with
effective results, in various fields such as medical,
metallurgical and for military applications. Currently lasers are
widely used for precision cutting and welding of metals,
ceramics and various other materials.
Laser Drilling
Majority of research in the field of laser drilling is focused on
solely using a laser to vaporize the rock. These methods are
proposed to have various advantages over currently used
rotary drilling techniques which include:
1. Increasing Rate of Penetration (ROP)-Laser drilling
shows the potential of having ROPs that is more than
100 times the presently ROPs
2. Provision of temporary casing
3. Reducing trip time and an increased bit life.
4. Lesser dependence on parameters such as weight on
bit, mud circulation rate, rotary speed and bit design
5. Accurate and precise drilling since lasers travel in a
straight line problems like dog legging are completely
eliminated.
6. Providing enhanced well control, perforating and
side-tracking capabilities
7. Single diameter bore hole
8. Achieving these breakthroughs with environmentally
attractive, safe and cost effective technology1
Candiate Lasers
Lasers of various types are available and are classified on the
basis of their sources of production as Gas lasers, Dye lasers,
Metal-vapour lasers, Solid-state lasers, semi-conductor lasers,
Free-Electron lasers and Nuclear pumped lasers. However at
present only a few lasers have been considered and short listed
as suitable for drilling through rocks and tested with. These
include:

SPE 104223

1. Deuterium Fluoride (DF)/Hydrogen Fluoride (HF)

2. Free-Electron Laser (FEL)
3. Chemical Oxygen-Iodine Laser (COIL)
4. Carbon Dioxide Laser (CO2)
5. Carbon Monoxide Laser (CO)
6. Neodymium: Yttrium Aluminum Garnet (Nd:YAG)
7. Krypton Fluoride Excimer Laser (KrF)
8. Mid-Infrared Advanced Chemical Laser (MIRACL)
9. Direct Diode Laser1, 2
The main problem encountered in the present day scenario
that prevents the commercial sole use of lasers for drilling is
the size of extremely high powered lasers.
Hence until compact lasers with enough power to vaporize
the entire rock mass can be commercially manufactured, a
LASER-MECHANICAL bit can be used.
Theory
Specific energy is useful for predicting the performance and
power requirements when only lasers are used as the sole rock
removal device.
Specific energy, E, is defined as the amount of energy required
to remove a unit volume of rock. It is calculated as;

E=

P = P
dV/dt
dws

(J/cm )

From specific energy which may be calculated from laboratory

or field tests the drilling rate, R of a system can be calculated
as;

R=

P
AE

However, when lasers are used in tandem with each other the
term defined as Specific Kerfing Energy is used.
When a combined laser-mechanical system is used, the rate
equals;

R=

1 PL PM
+

A EL EM

Where, PL and Pm are the power inputs of laser and

mechanical bit in watts and El and Em are the corresponding
specific energies.
In a laser-mechanical system the laser is used primarily to
unsupport the rock so that it is easier to mechanically drill
through the rock. It unsupports the rock prior to mechanical
drilling reduceing the Em of the rock by more than half thus
increasing the drilling rate.
However it is found that since the calculated specific
energy for a device may be same and cannot be used to
differentiate for different kerfing situations say a deep narrow
kerf and a broad shallow kerf. Specific energy is not an
accurate measure of kerfing ability.Hence we use the term
Specific Kerfing Energy (SKE). It is defined as the power per
kerf depth multiplied by the speed the cutting mechanism is
moving across a rock surface which is given by;

SKE =

Power
KerfDepth TraverseSpeed

(J/cm2)

A comparison of specific energies using different drilling

methods as well as using different types of lasers is provided
(Table 1 and Table 2). As well as a range of the Specific
Kerfing Energies required by various kerfing devices are given
(Table 3).
There are broadly four basic rock removal/disintegration
mechanisms. They are:
1. Melting and vaporization which take place when
the rock is subjected to temperatures above its
melting point.
2. Thermal spalling which occurs due to heating of the
rock surface rapidly producing high amount of
stresses which exceed the strength of the rock.
3. Mechanical breakage which is brought about by
mechanically drilling the rock.
4. Chemical reactions which occurs when chemicals
that dissolve rocks are used.3
Spalling
High powered lasers can weaken, spall, melt, and vaporize
rocks, with thermal spallation being the most energy-efficient
rock-removal mechanism. Laser rock spallation is a rockremoval process that uses laser-induced thermal stress to
fracture the rock into small fragments before it melts. When
high intensity laser energy is focused on a rock that has very
low thermal conductivity, it causes the local rock temperature
to increase instantaneously. This results in a local thermal
stress that spalls the rock. Previous test data shows that laser
rock spallation is the most energy efficient among all laser
rock removal mechanisms and also has a higher rock removal
rate when compared to conventional rotary drilling and flamejet spallation.
Work has shown that application laser radiation to rock
causes a significant decrease in rock mechanical strength due
to an increase in the microcrack structure and resulting tensile
stress field by the heat flow. Kilowatt level CO2 electric
discharge convection lasers are successfully used for
weakening rock by an unfocused beam or kerf-cutting rocks
by a more intense energy beam. The bulk of the lased rock
could be then removed by mechanical means.
Investigation has shown that current lasers are more than
sufficient to spall, melt or vaporize any lithology that may be
encountered in the oil well drilling.1,2 Recently, kilowatt CO2
laser and pulsed Nd:YAG laser with better process parameter
controls were used for testing. The specific energies, energy
required to remove unit volume of rock, were measured for
different lithologies and have shown a great agreement to
theoretically calculated values. Different laser/rock interaction
mechanisms from vaporization, melting, and spallation to
weakening were shown on rock slab samples when the laser
power density continuously reduced along the laser track. It
was shown that rock spalling caused by laser-induced thermal
stress is the most efficient mechanism.4

SPE 104223

Laser Removal Rock Mechanic Basics

When laser energy is applied to the rock, a temperature field in
the rock is created. The temperature distribution during the
initial period of lasing can be obtained by using the simplified
heat conduction model by Carslaw and Jaeger6 which assumes
portion of the rock beneath the constant laser beam to be part
of a semi-infinite, homogeneous, elastic solid. The
temperature distribution is given as:

T ( z, t ) =

2q Kt
z
ierfc

k
2 Kt

(1)

Where, T = Temperature at location z of the solid

z = Normal distance into the rock from its surface
(m)
q = Constant laser energy flux (watts/cm2)
K= Thermal diffusivity of the rock = k/c (m2/s)
k = Thermal conductivity of the rock (W/mC)
p = Density of the rock (kg/m3)
c = Specific heat of the rock (J/kgC)
t = Time from start of lasing (s)
ierfc= Integral of the complement of the error
function.
The laser-induced stresses in the rock caused by the
temperature distribution in the above equation are given as:

x = y =

ET
(1 )

(2)

Where, E = Young's modulus (MN/m2)

= Coefficient of linear thermal expansion
(0C-1)
T = Temperature as calculated from equation (1)
= Poisson's ratio
The stress is proportional to the temperature and the value
of the stress for any given temperature increases with
increasing values of Young's modulus, the coefficient of
expansion and Poisson's ratio. This stress is quite significant in
the rocks that have low thermal conductivity and high thermal
expansion. Spalling/cracking forms when the laser-induced
stress from equation (2) just beneath the surface reaches the
critical strength of the rock. If the mechanical and thermophysical properties of the rock exposed to the laser beam are
available, one can use equation (2) and (1) to find the laser
beam flux needed for generating rock spallation. Though the
finite element technique ought to be used to determine the
temperature and the corresponding thermal stresses for a rock
that is not completely homogeneous and isotropic as assumed
in the above simplified thermal stress analysis model, results
from the analysis model provide only guidelines for selection
of process parameters for laser spalling of rock.6
Similar to this model different models have been developed
for each of the physical phenomena based on the finite
difference method, then combining them into one numerical
procedure using the Constrained Interpolation Profile
Combined and Unified Procedure (CCUP) method is currently

being proposed for calculating the spalling parameters. CCUP

based on FDM is developed to simulate large deformation of
materials, fragmentation, multiphase problem and fluidstructure interaction problem. With this approach, the transient
temperature and stress distributions in dry or watersaturated
rocks exposed to a laser beam have been calculated. The
spallation boundary and rock removal energy efficiency have
been determined for different laser conditions. The modeling
results provide a better understanding of laser rock spallation
phenomenon and most importantly, guidelines for selecting
processing parameters for fast rock removal.5, 10
Laser Mechanical Bit
The laser mechanical bit works on the principal of first
spalling the rock using a laser beam. It has been proved that
temperatures induced by lasers weaken the rock. This is due to
fracture development, mineral dehydration and vaporization
that results in an increase in the void space. It is found that
when compared to the unlased portion the various moduli such
as Youngs modulus, shear modulus, bulk modulus and
combined modulus of the rock were reduced (Table 4).
This weakened rock is then drilled through using normal
presently used mechanical bit techniques. This is achieved at a
faster more efficient rate.
The laser characteristics can be adjusted from surface
depending on logging information to suit the formation
characteristics.
Beam Delivery Configurations
Beam delivery configurations refer to transferring the
produced high energy laser beam down hole. In various laser
machines the most common method used is using mirrors.
However due to the fragile nature of mirrors they cannot be
used for rock drilling. The two feasible beam delivery
configurations are:
1.

Assembly at surface: This configuration consists of

the laser production apparatus at the surface. The
produced laser beam is transferred down-hole using
sturdy fiber optic cables widely used in various
industrial laser machines. Though this assembly
sounds relatively simple, the beam transfer via fiber
optics could practically pose a problem as using fiber
optics over such a large distance of the entire drilling
depth for beam delivery has not been tried. However
in applications like down-hole cameras optical cables
have been a tried and tested method. Hence this
system shows a great promise.
After transfer of the beam from surface via the
cable, the beam is fed into the laser head which is
seated as an integral part into the normal currently
used mechanical bit (Figure 1 and Figure 2).

2.

Down-hole assembly: Some lasers such as Direct

Diode Laser are compact enough to put the entire
laser mechanism downhole. The basic requirement
for functioning of a laser is electric supply to the laser
tube. This electric supply can be produced using a
down-hole motor. These motors which are widely

SPE 104223

used in applications such as geo-steering and

directional drilling are capable of giving an output of
more than a kilowatt. In most laser types the tube is a
place where various forms of energy are use to
produce photons. It is in the tube that the lasing
mediums are exited emitting photons. These photons
are then transferred to the head from where it is
focused on the rock surface (Figure 3).
Laser Head
The laser head is the final stage of the laser production system.
It is basically an outlet for the laser beam to the rock.
It consists of a converging or diverging lens to adjust the beam
properties. This lens helps control the power, area of exposure
(beam diameter) and distance of beam focusing from bit onto
the formation.
As an integral part of any drilling laser head a suction pipe
is always present. This pipe clears the particles that are given
out from the drilled area. These particles if not cleared may
clog the laser lens reducing the laser efficiency.
The design of the currently used mechanical bit must be
modified such as the laser head perfectly seats into the bit.
Care should be taken during designing that the laser head is
perfectly aligned with the opening provided at the center of the
bit, so as no obstruction to the beam is encountered.
The laser head can be effectively incorporated in both rotary
(tri-cone bits) as well as fixed cutter type of bits (PDC,
Diamond impregnated, Hybrid and Natural Diamond bits).
Hence, giving a wide range of combinations (Figure 4),
depending on the drilling environments and formations that
may be encountered.
Additional Accessories
A few additional equipments would have to be added for
optimum performance of the laser-mechanical bit. These
include:
1.

2.

3.
4.

Focusing/De-focusing lens: this is an additional lens

which can be used for finely adjusting the laser beam.
The focusing lens converges the beam reducing the
beam diameter, where as the de-focusing lens scatters
the beam enabling an effectively larger beam
diameter.
Shutter: this is similar to the shutter found in
cameras. It is it made of tough metal preferably the
same composition as the bit and is located at the base
of the bit acting as a gate. The main purpose of
providing a shutter is to protect the laser when the
laser is not in use during operations like tripping in
and tripping out of the drill string. It prevents
formation, debris and fluids from entering the laser
head. Also protecting the head from back pressures
and well kicks.
Downhole cables: these are required for various
miscellaneous operations such as to control the laser,
supply power and get feed back information
Micro processers/Computers: The laser functioning
properties such as periodicity of laser shot, intensity
of shot, etc. can be controlled by pre-programmed
micro processors or via surface computers.

Advantages of Laser-Mechanical Bit

1. Faster ROP
2. Lesser wear of bit hence longer bit life
3. Reduction in number of trip times into and out of the
hole.
4. Applicable successfully in all type of drilling
operations. (Horizontal / Vertical / Directional).
5. The same laser production apparatus can be re-used
for drilling a number of wells
Conclusions
Use of lasers for drilling was a realm not ventured into by
many, this was because most people had dissenting and
contradictory views towards laser drilling based on limited
laboratory studies and experiments conducted 30 years ago,
when lasers were at their infancy. The lasers used during that
period had very low power, were difficult to focus, incapable
of transmitting power over large distances, non-portable and
largely unsafe. However with the advent of new developing
technology in the field of lasers most of the above mentioned
problems are put to rest.
Recent tests have also proven laser spalling as the most
efficient compared to other currently used rock removal
techniques. Detailed models are also available that give
accurate parameters with regard to laser spalling.
Until high powered compact lasers which can fit
downhole capable of vaporizing rocks can be commercially
manufactured, a Laser-Mechanical bit can be an effective
alternative technique of exploiting the merits of laser spalling
to give an optimum drilling mechanism. However as with any
new concept an initial feasibility study is very essential.
Recommendations
1. An in-depth study on the technicalities of the delivery
system should be undertaken.
2. Candidate lasers should be further short listed.
3. An initial cost assessment on the modifications to the
drill string will have to be done. Since about 20% of
rig time is spent in tripping operations and about 50%
time is spent in reaching deeper depths it is logical
that faster ROP and lesser bit wear will reduce the
cost. However, will the higher initial cost be feasibly
recovered by the rig time saved cost.
4. A study of the effects of vibrations on the fiber optic
cables and a risk analysis in event of a failure to the
optical cable will have to be made.
5. A problem may occur with drilling mud dehydrating
and turning powdery due to the heat generated by the
laser. As a remedial measure transparent drilling
fluids may have to be used. Another solution could be
using inert gases such as nitrogen as drilling fluids.

SPE 104223

Nomenclature
E=Specific Energy (J/cm3)
P=Power Input (Watts)
dV/dt= Volume Time Derivative (cm3/sec)
d=Kerf Depth (cm)
w=Kerf Width (cm)
s=Traverse Speed (cm/sec)
A=Hole Cross-Section Area (cm2)
SKE= Specific Kerfing Energy (J/cm2)
References
1. Graves, R.M. ,and. O'Brien, D.G.: "Star Wars Laser
Technology Applied to Drilling and Completing Gas
wells", SPE 49259, 1998
2. Graves, R.M., O'Brien, D.G. and OBrien, E.A.:
Star Wars Laser Technology for Gas Drilling and
Completions in the 21st Century SPE 56625, 1999.
3. Maurer, W.C.: Advanced drilling Techniques,
Petroleum Publishing Company, Tulsa (1980).
4. Graves, R.M., Gahan, B.C., Parker, R.A. and Araya,
A.:Comparision of Specific Energy Between Drilling
With High Power Lasers and Other
Drilling
Methords SPE 77627, 2002.
5. Bybee,K.: Modeling Laser-Spallation Rock
Drilling, JPT(Feb 2006) 62
6. Xu, Z., Reed, C.B, Parker, R., and Graves,R.: Laser
spallation of rocks for oil well drilling, Proceedings
of 23rd International Congress on Applications of
Laser & Electro-Optics, October 4-7, 2004, San
Francisco, California.
7. Graves , R.M. , Gahan, B.C. , Parker , R.A. and
Batarseh, S ,: Temperature Induced by High Power
Lasers: Effects on Reservoir Rock Strength and
Mechanical Properties SPE/ISRM 78154, 2002
8. Carstens, J.P., and Brown, C.A.: "Rock Cutting by
Laser" SPE paper No. 3529, 46th Annual Meeting of
the SPE, New Orleans, Louisiana (October 3-6,
1971).
9. Gahan, B.C. , Parker , R.A. , Batarseh, S., Figueroa,
H., Reed ,C.B and Xu, Z.:
Laser Drilling:
Determination of Energy Required to Remove Rock
SPE 71466, 2001.
10. Zhiyue Xu, Yuichiro Yamashita1, and Claude B.
Reed,:TWO-DIMENSIONAL
MODELING
OF
LASER SPALLATION DRILLING OF ROCKS,P532
11. Bensson, A.,Burr,B.,Dillard, S., Drake,E., Ivie, C.
Ivie,B., Smith,R., and Watson,G.: On the Cutting
Edge ,Oilfield Review (Autumn 2000)36

SPE 104223

DRILLING METHOD

SE (kJ/cm3)

REFERENCES

Cavitating Jet

2.9

Conn & Radtke, 1977

High Pressure Water Jet

134.7

Mellor, 1972

High Pressure Water Jet

0.9

Summers & Henry, 1972

High Pressure Water Jet

0.3

Summers & Henry, 1972

Rotary Diamond

1.4

Maurer, 1968

Rotary Drag

0.4

Maurer, 1968

Rotary Roller Drag

0.8

Maurer, 1968

CO2 Laser

37.4

Graves, et al., 2002

CO Laser

22.8

Graves, et al., 1999

COIL

7.2

Graves & Batarseh, 2001

Nd:YAG

5.9

Figueroa, et al., 2002

Table 1: Specific Energy of Drilling Methods

Laser

Power (kW)

Power Density
(kW/cm2)

SE (kJ/cm3)

CO2*

10.0

26.0

37.4

CO2*

5.0

13.0

50.4

CO2**

N/A

-1000

34.1

CO

N/A

-1000

22.8

COIL

6.3

123.6

31.8

COIL

5.3

139.6

26.5

COIL

2.8

35.2

6.8

COIL

1.5

16.4

7.2

Nd:YAG

1.2

1.7

31.0

Nd:YAG

1.2

0.9

16.2

Nd:YAG

0.5

0.3

17.5

Nd:YAG

0.5

0.4

22.2

*Wright - Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, USA.

**Lebedev Radiophysics Institute, Moscow, Russia.

Table 2: Specific Energy of Different Lasers for Berea Sandstone4

SPE 104223

DRILL

SPECIFIC KERFING ENERGY (J/cm2)

Water Jets

250 500

Lasers

1000 2000

Electron Beam

3000 6000

Cavitating Jets

20000 40000

Plasmas

50000 100000

Table 3: Specific Kerfing Energy of Drilling Methods3

Sample

Young's
modulus (E)
psi
x106

Poisson's
Ratio
()

Shear
Bulk modulus Bulk compressibility Combined modulus
modulus (G)
(K)
(Cb)
(+2G)
psi
psi
psi
psi
x106
x106
x10-6
x1012
LASED

Berea Yellow
Sandstone

2.16

0.18

1.85

1.13

0.89

1119

Berea Grey Sandstone

2.77

0.29

2.21

2.24

0.45

1274

Mesaverde Shaly
Sandstone

3.04

0.16

4.11

1.47

0.68

1550

Ratcliff Limestone

9.45

0.16

4.48

4.63

0.22

4127

Frontier Shale

6.30

0.00

3.28

1.95

0.51

3220

UNLASED
Berea Yellow
Sandstone

5.07

0.37

0.92

6.41

0.16

2204

Berea Grey Sandstone

5.87

0.33

1.07

5.71

0.18

2106

Mesaverde Shaly
Sandstone

9.32

0.13

1.31

4.23

0.24

4738

Ratcliff Limestone

11.20

0.25

4.05

7.48

0.13

4348

Frontier Shale

8.22

0.25

3.15

5.53

0.18

3342

Table 4: Comparision of Elastic Moduli of Lased and Unlased Sample7

SPE 104223

Figure 1: Laser-Mechanical Tri-cone Rotary Bit with fiber optic delivery system

SPE 104223

Figure 2:Cross-section of Laser-Mechanical Tri-cone Rotary Bit (Modified after Reference11)

Figure 3: Laser-Mechanical Fixed Cutter Bit (Modified after Reference11)

10

SPE 104223

Figure 4: Laser-Mechanical Tri-cone Rotary Bit with Down-hole configuration