Influence of different laser operation regimes on the specific energy

required for rock removal in oil and gas well drilling applications
Florian Albert, Alexander Grimm, Michael Schmidt

BLZ - Bayerishes Laserzentrum GmbH, Konrad-Zuse-Strae 2-6, D-91052 Erlangen, Germany

Alain Cournoyer, Martin Briand and Pierre Galarneau

INO, 2740 rue Einstein, Qubec, Qc, Canada G1P 4S4

ABSTRACT

Although many practical hurdles remain to be addressed in the future, laser oil and gas well drilling has potential
advantages over the conventional rotary drilling approach, such as a smaller footprint of the drilling rig, higher rates of
penetration, reduction of downtime due to dull bits, reduction of waste caused by drilling mud, creation of a natural
casing while drilling, and ability to drill in hard rock formations. One of the most promising applications is downhole
laser perforation for well completion as an alternative to explosive technologies currently in use. In order to establish
both the technical and economic feasibility of using lasers in oil and gas drilling operations, one can measure the laser
energy required to remove a unit volume of rock. The resulting specific energy is a measure of the efficiency of the laser
drilling process and depends on the rock type and the laser operation regime that determines the laser-rock interaction
mechanism. In the present feasibility study, we compare the results of laser drilling tests conducted in two types of
reservoir rocks, namely limestone and sandstone, at different laser wavelengths and for different laser operation regimes
(continuous wave and pulsed regimes, different repetition rates and duty cycles) in terms of specific energy. We also
discuss preliminary results on the influence of the temporal shape of the laser pulses in the nanosecond regime on the
rock removal process as obtained with INO pulse-shaping fiber laser platform, with the objective to take advantage of
the flexibility and the agility of such a laser source for drilling operations in different rock types.

Keywords: Laser, pulsed fiber laser, laser drilling, rock drilling, oil and gas well drilling, specific energy, spallation.

1. INTRODUCTION
The petroleum industry constitutes a key element of the economy in Canada, particularly in the western part of the
country. Although tar sands represent an important portion of the oil reserves, conventional oil wells are still a major
source of revenue. In addition, Canada has access to huge unexploited oil and gas reserves in the Arctic.[1] Furthermore,
gas hydrates (ice-like substances composed of water and natural gas), which are present in large quantities in the Arctic
Ocean, are expected to represent a reservoir of natural gas larger than all other fossil fuel sources combined on earth.[2]
Exploration programs have to be conducted to identify financially viable and profitable reservoirs. Interesting enough is
the fact that oil and gas exploration programs in the North also act as a way for Canada to claim its sovereignty in the
Arctic, a very important political issue as major global warming effects are observed and increasingly acknowledged.
Nowadays, oil and gas well drilling meet new challenges that drive the need for innovation, challenges that are even
more compelling in the North. Environmental issues and more severe regulations (e.g. noise reduction and waste
disposal) call for the development of new well drilling methods, in particular for the reduction of the footprint of drilling
rigs. In the Arctic, the drilling periods are short and mainly restricted to winter time, due to the need for building ice
roads for the transportation of the equipment. Only a fraction of those periods are dedicated to exploration well drilling
activities, the rest of the time being related to logistic operations. The cost of exploration well drilling in such conditions
is in the range of hundreds of thousand dollars per day. Energy supply is another issue in the isolated drilling sites of the
Arctic. Consequently, any technological improvement that would reduce the cost of operation and the energy supply in

Photonics North 2009, edited by Ral Valle, Proc. of SPIE Vol. 7386, 73860U
2009 SPIE CCC code: 0277-786X/09/$18 doi: 10.1117/12.840423

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 7386 73860U-1

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 05/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://spiedigitallibrary.org/ss/termsofuse.aspx

 oil and gas well drilling activities would be beneficial to both the environment and the financial profitability of the
industry.
In addition to Canadas sovereignty issue in the Arctic, new opportunities for innovation emerge from other applications
that have requirements and challenges that are similar to oil and gas well drilling in the North. For example, exploration
missions on Mars require drilling methods to collect rock samples that must overcome the critical energy supply issue.
Niche markets could also benefit from the development of new well drilling approaches, such as drilling for domestic
geothermal energy supply.
Although laser technology could possibly meet some of the challenges cited above, its application to rock drilling faces
scepticism. That attitude is mainly based on experimental results obtained in the late 1960s and early 1970s.[3] At the
time, the low power output and low overall efficiency of lasers, along with potential laser hazard to personnel led the
drilling equipment suppliers that seriously considered the use of lasers to the conclusion that they could only be
considered as an assistant tool to mechanical means.[4] The value of the energy required for rock removal was also
highly overestimated.[5]
There has been a renewed interest in the application of laser technology to rock drilling with the work conducted in the
1990s by Gas Technology Institute (GTI) in collaboration with Colorado School of Mines and Argonne National
Laboratory.[5] The team clearly demonstrated in laboratory, initially using continuous wave (cw) lasers such as the U.S.
Armys Mid-Infrared Advanced Chemical Laser (MIRACL) and the U.S. Air Forces Chemical Oxygen-Iodine Laser
(COIL), then testing kilowatt laser systems such as a cw CO2 laser and a pulsed Nd:YAG laser, that rock removal was
feasible using existing laser technology.[3-5] Progresses in laser technology since early 2000s, such as high power fiber
lasers and high power thin-disk lasers that exhibit improved robustness, reliability and wall-plug efficiency in a smaller
footprint open opportunities for practical use in the field. Those developments renewed the interest of large companies in
the oil and gas industry for laser technology, in particular for well completion and perforation.
Rotary drilling is the reference technology in the industry and represents a benchmark for the application of lasers to oil
and gas well drilling. Among the potential advantages of lasers over conventional approaches, some are similar to the
well known advantages of industrial laser material processing, i.e. the non-contact and inertia-less nature [6] of laser-
matter interaction. Consequently, downtime caused by dull bits should be largely reduced in laser rock drilling.
Furthermore, drilling mud, which is mandatory in conventional drilling, could be eliminated using lasers [3], a key aspect
with regards to the reduction of waste for environmental considerations. The nature of the laser drilling process could
also open the way to the reduction of the footprint of drilling rigs. In principle, laser technology allows for the drilling of
smaller holes, an interesting advantage in exploration programs, and a higher rate of penetration (ROP) compared to
rotary drilling.[3,6] Lasers can also drill different types of rock, in particular the hard rock formation that can cause
undesirable deviation of drilling bits. Under specific conditions, melting of the rock material will result from laser
drilling, thus creating vitrified material on the walls of the laser-drilled holes. Such a natural casing would have the
ability to prevent collapse and formation fluid seepage into the well.[3, 6]
One of the most promising applications for lasers in oil and gas well drilling is well completion and perforation. During
that stage of the drilling process, openings through the casing wall into the rock formation are created downhole in order
to allow the formation fluid (oil or gas) to enter the well. The standard method makes use of explosive shape charges that
can damage the formation and reduce the permeability of the rock. A technique that would enable more precise
perforation and less damaged formations would be greatly beneficial to well completion operations, and lasers might
represent a potential solution. Finally, delivery of the laser power downhole is possible using fiber optics technology.[6]
Interesting enough is the fact that optical fibers are also fully compatible with coil tubing technology, an approach that is
gaining more and more adopters in the oil and gas well drilling community.
Needless to say that laser technology has potential drawbacks with regards to oil and gas well drilling, and many hurdles
remain. First, that industry is pretty conservative and the introduction of new technology is not an easy task. The issue
of overall energy efficiency is a key aspect for oil and gas well drilling, and the limited wall-plug efficiency exhibited by
lasers when compared to standard mechanical means has to be improved if the laser technology is to be adopted by the
industry. Oil and gas well drilling also means km-deep holes with very high aspect ratios. Furthermore, the presence of
water, fluids and mud could prevent efficient laser drilling because of scattering, absorption and diffraction of the laser
beam downhole, where high pressure conditions also favour the formation of plasma plumes that can also attenuate the
laser beam. As a consequence, the design of appropriate beam delivery systems to operate in such conditions is a very
challenging task, and even if flexible optical fibers offer an interesting way to deliver laser power downhole, the

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 7386 73860U-2

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 05/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://spiedigitallibrary.org/ss/termsofuse.aspx

 attenuation over km-long fibers cannot be neglected as it would result in power losses and a less efficient laser drilling
process. Beam delivery is probably the most important challenge to be faced by laser technology in order to penetrate
the oil and gas well drilling market.
In the following, we discuss the preliminary results of the laser rock drilling tests that we conducted in order to explore
different operation regimes and their influence on the efficiency of the laser rock drilling process.

2. SPECIFIC ENERGY CONCEPT

A high power laser beam incident on a rock will result in rock destruction and removal through three main mechanisms,
namely spallation, melting, or vaporization. The particular destruction and removal mechanism will be determined by the
laser energy applied on the rock, but also by the way it is applied.[7] To measure the efficiency of a given rock removal
mechanism, it is convenient to define a simple energy parameter called specific energy (SE) as
SE (kJ/cm3) = energy input / volume of rock removed. (1)
That definition has the advantage of being familiar to the oil and gas well drilling industry as SE is already used to
compare drilling bit designs and discuss the efficiency of different mechanical drilling methods.[7] Quite obviously, the
most efficient laser rock removal mechanism leads to the minimum value of SE. For the sake of comparison, SE for the
widely used rotary drilling approach is typically in the range of 1 kJ/cm3.[6]
When laser-induced thermal stresses reach the critical strength of the rock, the result is the fracture of the rock into small
fragments that can be easily removed.[7] The so-called laser rock spallation or fragmentation is usually the most efficient
rock removal mechanism in inhomogeneous rock materials as it occurs below the melting and vaporization temperatures,
thus requiring less energy input.
In the following, based on our preliminary experimental results, we compare the effect of different laser parameters
(wavelength, cw or pulsed regimes, irradiation time, energy density, average and peak power densities, pulse duration
and repetition rate) on the specific energy needed to remove a unit volume of rock.

3. EXPERIMENTAL METHODOLOGY
3.1 Samples
For the needs of our preliminary study, we conducted laser drilling tests on two typical oil and gas reservoir rocks,
namely Berea Gray sandstone and Indiana limestone. Similar rock materials have been used in the past by other
authors.[5] Although we did not measure the composition and thermal properties of our specific samples, typical values
are found in reference [5] and are listed in Table 1. As will be seen in Section 4, we present experimental results for
Indiana limestone only, given that our tests showed that the same general conclusions apply to both rock types.
Table 1. Typical values for rock sample compositions and thermal properties.

Density Thermal Heat capacity Thermal

Composition
Rock type Mineralogy conductivity k C diffusivity D
(%)
(g/cm3) (W/mK) (J/gK) (cm2/s)
Quartz SiO2 85%
Feldspar Al2O3 10%
Berea Gray
Opaq Fe 3% 2.15 2.60 0.882 0.0113
sandstone
Others 2%
Calcium carbonate CaCO3 85%
Indiana MgO 5% 2.41 2.02 0.924 0.0081
limestone
Rock fragment 10%

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 7386 73860U-3

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 05/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://spiedigitallibrary.org/ss/termsofuse.aspx

 3.2 Laser systems
A list of the different laser systems used for our preliminary study is given in Table 2. As can be seen, a good range of
different laser parameters was covered in order to explore different operation regimes for rock drilling applications. We
also conducted laser drilling tests using a high power cw fiber laser (IPG YLR-1000-SM, 1000 W, 1070 nm, beam
diameter at surface of 18 m). Unfortunately, the results could not be analyzed due to cracking of the sample induced
during post-test manipulations.
Table 2. Laser systems used to conduct preliminary laser drilling tests at BLZ and INO.

Maximum Pulse
Repetition rate Beam diameter
Wavelength average duration
Laser system Laser medium (kHz) at surface
(nm) power (ns)
or cw (mm)
(W) or cw

Trumpf Disklaser
HLD 4002
Yb:YAG 1030 4000 cw cw 0.3
(BLZ)

Quantronix
532CQ 100W
Nd:YAG 100
GREEN
(frequency 532 128 5- 25 3
(BLZ) doubled) (at 10 kHz)

Trumpf TLF
5100/TLC 105
CO2 10600 5100 cw cw 0.18
(BLZ)

Quantel Brilliant 2.2

b 2.7
Nd:YAG 1064 8.5 5 0.01
(INO) 3.1

200 0.0024
MOPAW 2.5 80
or 0.4
Yb-doped fiber 1064 1 (in 2.5 ns 0.0033
(INO) (using a pulse
steps)
picker) 0.0047

3.3 Methodology
For the laser drilling tests conducted at BLZ, we prepared a Berea Gray sandstone sample (75-mm diameter, 10-mm
thick disk) and an Indiana limestone sample (65 mm x 45 mm, 20-mm thick slab) from larger rock blocks using a
diamond saw, without any further polishing of the surface of the samples. For a given laser system, after choosing a set
of laser parameters and an irradiation time, the samples were positioned at the waist of the laser beam at normal
incidence and a cylindrical hole was drilled. No purging system was used for the preliminary tests. The volume of rock
removed by laser drilling was obtained by measurement of the diameter and the depth of the drilled hole. Incident laser
energy was calculated from the laser parameters used and the irradiation time. SE was simply calculated from equation
(1). A similar procedure was followed for the tests conducted at INO using Quantel Brilliant b laser system, except for
the fact that the large rock blocks were directly used.
By using INO proprietary laser platform MOPAW (Master Oscillator with Programmable Arbitrary Waveform), we
tested a completely different set of laser parameters. Because of the low average power of the laser, tight focusing of the
beam is needed in order to remove rock material, which also results in a very limited Rayleigh range. As a consequence,
drilling tests would have given microscopic holes difficult to measure with precision. In order to overcome that

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 7386 73860U-4

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 05/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://spiedigitallibrary.org/ss/termsofuse.aspx

 difficulty, we adopted a methodology used for laser micro-milling in metals.[8] Our experimental setup is illustrated in
Figure 1. We first polished the samples so that the whole surface could be precisely positioned at the waist of the
MOPAW laser beam. Samples were installed on motorized translation stages and displaced at 2 mm/s in order to create
11 adjacent lines by laser micro-machining in a raster scan mode. The lateral shift between two consecutive 2-mm long
lines was 6 m. By micro-milling 20 layers in that mode, we created 60-m wide and 2-mm long channels with a depth
that depends on the laser parameters used, for a total micro-machining time of 220 s. No purging system was used. We
calculated the volume of removed rock material after measuring the dimensions of the channel. Using an electro-optic
modulator as a pulse picker, the repetition rate of the pulse train could be reduced from 200 kHz down to 400 Hz,
leading to a pulse-to-pulse overlap of approximately 57% and a dose of ~2 shots/spot.[8] Operation at 200 kHz increased
the dose by a factor of 500.

/2 EOM /4 Camera
MOPAW
laser Dichroic mirror
system
PBS PBS Focusing lens
Sample
XYZ
motorized
stages

Figure 1. Experimental setup for the tests conducted using the MOPAW laser system. PBS: polarizing beamsplitters. EOM: electro-
optic modulator. /2: half-wave plate. /4: quarter-wave plate.

4. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In this section, we present some of the experimental results from our preliminary tests. Using the different laser systems
described in Table 2, a total of 33 different sets of laser parameters were tested. As indicated in Section 3.1, we limit the
following discussion to the case of Indiana limestone samples, since our tests showed that the same general conclusions
apply to both Berea Gray sandstone and Indiana limestone.
Figure 2 illustrates the behaviour of SE as a function of the total laser irradiation time for 19 different sets of laser
parameters. On logarithmic scales, the data points for cw laser sources fall on a straight line, and the laser wavelength
does not seem, at first sight, to influence that behaviour. Figure 2 also shows that we can even consider the INO
MOPAW laser system as a cw laser source when operated at 200 kHz. The thermal diffusion length Lth being given by [9]
Lth = (4Dt), (2)
where D is the thermal diffusivity of the sample (see Table 1) and t is the time elapsed between two pulses (t = 5 s at a
repetition rate of 200 kHz), one can calculate Lth to be approximately 4 m, which is similar to the spot size (see Table
2). Consequently, the temperature of the rock material does not have time to decrease between consecutive pulses, and
the behaviour is similar to what is observed for cw lasers.
The fact that the value of specific energy increases with total irradiation time has been observed in the past by other
authors [9], although the range of total irradiation times covered in our experiments is much larger. Part of the
explanation for that behaviour is related to laser energy dissipation through thermal diffusion into the sample as
irradiation time increases, thus limiting the efficiency of the rock removal mechanism. Phase changes that occur as the
temperature reaches the melting point of some of the constituents of the rock also consume part of the energy that is not
available for rock removal.[5]
Figure 2 also illustrates that for a given total irradiation time, laser drilling with pulsed laser sources results in lower
values of the specific energy. As discussed above, as long as the energy per laser pulse is not sufficient to induce phase
changes, each short pulse is more efficient (lower value of SE) than a cw source of the same power density to remove

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 7386 73860U-5

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 05/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://spiedigitallibrary.org/ss/termsofuse.aspx

 rock material. If the cooling time between pulses (which is controlled by the repetition rate) is optimized, then SE
values can be reduced and the laser rock drilling process can be made more efficient.[4]

100000

10000
Specific energy (kJ/cm )
3

1000

100

10

1
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Total irradiation time (s)

CO2, 1000 W, 3.93 MW/cm2, 0.01 s Yb:YAG, 4000 W, 5.66 MW/cm2, 2 s

CO2, 1000 W, 3.93 MW/cm2, 0.02 s
CO2, 1000 W, 3.93 MW/cm2, 0.03 s
CO2, 1000 W, 3.93 MW/cm2, 0.04 s
Yb:YAG, 4000 W, 5.66 MW/cm2, 0.01 s
Yb:YAG, 1000 W, 1.41 MW/cm2, 0.1 s
Yb:YAG, 2000 W, 2.83 MW/cm2, 0.1 s
Yb:YAG, 3000 W, 4.24 MW/cm2, 0.1 s
Yb:YAG, 4000 W, 5.66 MW/cm2, 0.1 s
Yb:YAG, 1000 W, 1.41 MW/cm2, 2 s
Pulsed Nd:YAG (5 ns), 1064 nm, 10 Hz, 97 W/cm2, 180 s
Pulsed Nd:YAG (128 ns), 532 nm, 20 kHz, 905 W/cm2, 10 s
Pulsed Yb fiber (10 ns), 200 kHz, 22 W/cm2, 220 s
Pulsed Yb fiber (10 ns), 200 kHz, 11.7 W/cm2, 220 s
Pulsed Yb fiber (10 ns), 200 kHz, 5.8 W/cm2, 220 s
Pulsed Yb fiber (10 ns), 400 Hz, 44 mW/cm2, 220 s
Pulsed Yb fiber (10 ns), 400 Hz, 23.4 mW/cm2, 220 s
Pulsed Yb fiber (10 ns), 400 Hz, 11.5 mW/cm2, 220 s

Figure 2. Specific energy (SE) as a function of total irradiation time for different laser parameter sets, using different laser systems.
Sample: Indiana limestone.
In Figure 2, it is also interesting to note that for a given irradiation time, an increase in power density results in a
decrease in SE values when using a cw laser. The same behaviour has been observed before, as long as the rock removal
mechanism does not change.[4] For example, in the case of rock removal through spallation, SE is reduced as the power
density increases and larger volumes of rock are removed, up to a point where any further increase in power density
initiates a phase change (melting) and the value of the specific energy increases.[5]
Finally, it is also observed in Figure 2 that for the case of the cw Yb:YAG laser system operated at a power density of
5.66 MW/cm2, a 10-ms irradiation time leads to a higher SE value when compared to a 100-ms irradiation time, in
contradiction with the previous discussion. We can also observe that although the laser power density is higher

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 7386 73860U-6

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 05/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://spiedigitallibrary.org/ss/termsofuse.aspx

 compared to the case of CO2 laser, the same 10-ms irradiation time leads to a higher SE value for the Yb:YAG laser,
which is again in contradiction with previous discussions. We thus come to the conclusion that the absorption of the
laser energy is probably better at the CO2 laser wavelength when compared to the Yb:YAG laser wavelength.
Consequently, if the irradiation time is too short, the total energy input into the rock is not sufficient to induce efficient
rock removal and the value of SE increases. In fact, in the case of CO2 laser at 10-ms irradiation time, the SE value of
~ 5 kJ/cm3 compares well enough with the typical value of 1 kJ/cm3 for rotary drilling (see Section 2).

100000

10000
Specific energy (kJ/cm )
3

1000

100

10

1
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
2
Total incident energy density (kJ/cm )

CO2, 1000 W, 3.93 MW/cm2, 0.01 s Yb:YAG, 4000 W, 5.66 MW/cm2, 2 s

CO2, 1000 W, 3.93 MW/cm2, 0.02 s
CO2, 1000 W, 3.93 MW/cm2, 0.03 s
CO2, 1000 W, 3.93 MW/cm2, 0.04 s
Yb:YAG, 4000 W, 5.66 MW/cm2, 0.01 s
Yb:YAG, 1000 W, 1.41 MW/cm2, 0.1 s
Yb:YAG, 2000 W, 2.83 MW/cm2, 0.1 s
Yb:YAG, 3000 W, 4.24 MW/cm2, 0.1 s
Yb:YAG, 4000 W, 5.66 MW/cm2, 0.1 s
Yb:YAG, 1000 W, 1.41 MW/cm2, 2 s
Pulsed Nd:YAG (5 ns), 1064 nm, 10 Hz, 97 W/cm2, 180 s
Pulsed Nd:YAG (128 ns), 532 nm, 20 kHz, 905 W/cm2, 10 s
Pulsed Yb fiber (10 ns), 200 kHz, 22 W/cm2, 220 s
Pulsed Yb fiber (10 ns), 200 kHz, 11.7 W/cm2, 220 s
Pulsed Yb fiber (10 ns), 200 kHz, 5.8 W/cm2, 220 s
Pulsed Yb fiber (10 ns), 400 Hz, 44 mW/cm2, 220 s
Pulsed Yb fiber (10 ns), 400 Hz, 23.4 mW/cm2, 220 s
Pulsed Yb fiber (10 ns), 400 Hz, 11.5 mW/cm2, 220 s

Figure 3. Specific energy (SE) as a function of total incident energy density for different laser parameter sets, using different laser
systems. Sample: Indiana limestone.
In Figure 3, the same SE data for Indiana limestone are analyzed as a function of the total incident energy density. Once
again, on logarithmic scales, data points for cw laser sources in the power density range of a few MW/cm2 more or less
fall on a straight line. That behaviour is similar to what was observed in Figure 2, which is not surprising since the total
incident energy density is the product of the incident power density and total irradiation time. More interesting are the

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 7386 73860U-7

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 05/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://spiedigitallibrary.org/ss/termsofuse.aspx

 data points for pulsed Nd:YAG laser sources since they also fit reasonably well on the same straight line. We also
observe that for similar total incident energy densities, SE values are much lower in the case of CO2 laser system,
meaning that the absorbed energy densities are probably higher, leading to a more efficient rock removal mechanism.
As can be seen in Table 2, the MOPAW laser system operates in a completely different regime when compared to the
other laser systems. Illustrating the behaviour of SE as a function of the incident energy density per pulse, we conclude
from Figure 4 that the incident pulse energy density is orders of magnitude lower in the case of the MOPAW system,
leading to an inefficient rock removal mechanism for each pulse. Figure 3 shows that even when the pulse repetition
rate is high and the total irradiation time is long, leading to total incident energy densities for the MOPAW laser that are
similar to the ones obtained with the other pulsed laser systems, the inefficiency of the rock removal mechanism by
individual pulses translates in SE values that are orders of magnitude higher.

100000

10000
Specific energy (kJ/cm )
3

1000

100

10

1
1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08
2
Incident energy density per pulse (J/cm )

CO2, 1000 W, 3.93 MW/cm2, 0.01 s Yb:YAG, 4000 W, 5.66 MW/cm2, 2 s

CO2, 1000 W, 3.93 MW/cm2, 0.02 s
CO2, 1000 W, 3.93 MW/cm2, 0.03 s
CO2, 1000 W, 3.93 MW/cm2, 0.04 s
Yb:YAG, 4000 W, 5.66 MW/cm2, 0.01 s
Yb:YAG, 1000 W, 1.41 MW/cm2, 0.1 s
Yb:YAG, 2000 W, 2.83 MW/cm2, 0.1 s
Yb:YAG, 3000 W, 4.24 MW/cm2, 0.1 s
Yb:YAG, 4000 W, 5.66 MW/cm2, 0.1 s
Yb:YAG, 1000 W, 1.41 MW/cm2, 2 s
Pulsed Nd:YAG (5 ns), 1064 nm, 10 Hz, 97 W/cm2, 180 s
Pulsed Nd:YAG (128 ns), 532 nm, 20 kHz, 905 W/cm2, 10 s
Pulsed Yb fiber (10 ns), 200 kHz, 22 W/cm2, 220 s
Pulsed Yb fiber (10 ns), 200 kHz, 11.7 W/cm2, 220 s
Pulsed Yb fiber (10 ns), 200 kHz, 5.8 W/cm2, 220 s
Pulsed Yb fiber (10 ns), 400 Hz, 44 mW/cm2, 220 s
Pulsed Yb fiber (10 ns), 400 Hz, 23.4 mW/cm2, 220 s
Pulsed Yb fiber (10 ns), 400 Hz, 11.5 mW/cm2, 220 s

Figure 4. Specific energy (SE) as a function of the incident energy density per pulse for different laser parameter sets, using different
laser systems. Sample: Indiana limestone.

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 7386 73860U-8

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 05/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://spiedigitallibrary.org/ss/termsofuse.aspx

 Comparing Figures 3 and 4, one will notice that the behaviour of SE for cw laser sources is identical since in that case
the incident energy density per pulse is the same as the total incident energy density. Figure 4 also illustrates (see the
data points for the MOPAW laser system) that for a given incident energy density per pulse, the reduction of the
repetition rate can be beneficial to the specific energy of the rock removal mechanism, in particular if high repetition
rates leads to a behaviour that is similar to a cw laser source.

1.E+06

1.E+05

1.E+04
Specific energy (kJ/cm )
3

1.E+03

1.E+02

1.E+01

1.E+00
1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08 1.E+09 1.E+10
2
Incident pulse peak power density (W/cm )

Pulsed Nd:YAG (5 ns), 1064 nm, 10 Hz, 188 W/cm2, 180 s
Pulsed Nd:YAG (5 ns), 1064 nm, 10 Hz, 127 W/cm2, 180 s
Pulsed Nd:YAG (5 ns), 1064 nm, 10 Hz, 97 W/cm2, 180 s
Pulsed Nd:YAG (128 ns), 532 nm, 10 kHz, 1.40 kW/cm2, 10 s
Pulsed Nd:YAG (128 ns), 532 nm, 15 kHz, 1.14 kW/cm2, 10 s
Pulsed Nd:YAG (128 ns), 532 nm, 20 kHz, 905 W/cm2, 10 s
Pulsed Yb fiber (3 ns), 400 Hz, 44 mW/cm2, 220 s
Pulsed Yb fiber (10 ns), 400 Hz, 44 mW/cm2, 220 s
Pulsed Yb fiber (30 ns), 400 Hz, 44 mW/cm2, 220 s
Pulsed Yb fiber (3 ns), 400 Hz, 23.4 mW/cm2, 220 s
Pulsed Yb fiber (10 ns), 400 Hz, 23.4 mW/cm2, 220 s
Pulsed Yb fiber (30 ns), 400 Hz, 23.4 mW/cm2, 220 s
Pulsed Yb fiber (3 ns), 400 Hz, 11.5 mW/cm2, 220 s
Pulsed Yb fiber (10 ns), 400 Hz, 11.5 mW/cm2, 220 s
Pulsed Yb fiber (3 ns), 200 kHz, 22 W/cm2, 220 s
Pulsed Yb fiber (10 ns), 200 kHz, 22 W/cm2, 220 s
Pulsed Yb fiber (30 ns), 200 kHz, 22 W/cm2, 220 s
Pulsed Yb fiber (3 ns), 200 kHz, 11.7 W/cm2, 220 s
Pulsed Yb fiber (10 ns), 200 kHz, 11.7 W/cm2, 220 s
Pulsed Yb fiber (30 ns), 200 kHz, 11.7 W/cm2, 220 s
Pulsed Yb fiber (3 ns), 200 kHz, 5.8 W/cm2, 220 s
Pulsed Yb fiber (10 ns), 200 kHz, 5.8 W/cm2, 220 s

Figure 5. Specific energy (SE) as a function of the incident pulse peak power density for different laser parameter sets, using different
pulsed laser systems. Sample: Indiana limestone.
In Figure 5, we concentrate on test results relative to pulsed laser systems and we analyze SE as a function of the
incident peak power density. In our experiments, different methods were used to vary the pulse peak power density. For
a given pulse duration and a given spot size, pulse peak power density can be changed by varying the repetition rate at
constant laser power, by varying the laser power at constant repetition rate or by varying both parameters. It was the

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 7386 73860U-9

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 05/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://spiedigitallibrary.org/ss/termsofuse.aspx

 case for the Quantronix system at 532 nm (see Table 2). According to Figure 5, in such a situation, our results are not
clearly conclusive but seem to show a slight decrease of the value of SE with increasing peak power density. That result
is consistent with the previous results and analysis for cw lasers at constant irradiation time.
For a given pulse duration and a given average laser power at constant repetition rate, variation of the incident pulse
peak power density can be obtained by changing the spot size like we did using the Quantel Brilliant b and the MOPAW
laser systems at 1064 nm (see Table 2). In that situation, the results illustrated in Figure 5 clearly show that increasing
the laser peak power density leads to the increase of SE, and that observation holds even if the peak power densities
differ by orders of magnitude for the two different laser systems. At first sight, that behaviour is not consistent with the
previous analysis for cw lasers at constant irradiation time. One possible explanation could be that by reducing the spot
size and keeping all other laser parameters constant, the same incident pulse energy will be used to remove a smaller
volume of rock material, leading to an increased SE value (see equation (1)). In the case of the MOPAW laser system,
that conclusion holds for the two very different repetition rates of 400 Hz and 200 kHz.
For a given spot size and a given average power at constant repetition rate, the flexibility of the MOPAW laser platform
allows for changing the pulse peak power density through the control of the pulse duration at constant pulse energy
density [8] (see Table 2). In those conditions, longer pulses will result in lower pulse peak power densities. Analyzing
the results of Figure 5, it is pretty clear that an increase in peak power density along with a decrease in pulse duration
will result in a reduced value of the specific energy. Since the temperature reached at the surface of the sample is
proportional to the incident peak power density and to the square root of the pulse duration [9], a reduction of the pulse
duration at constant pulse energy will result in a temperature increase for short laser pulses, and in a more efficient rock
removal mechanism as long as the melting temperature is not reached. That analysis is in fact consistent with the
previous discussion relative to cw laser sources since it was shown that both a decrease of the irradiation time and an
increase of the power density lead to lower SE values.
According to the results of Figure 5 for the MOPAW laser system, it is obvious again that the repetition rate is a key
parameter for the control of the specific energy. Finally, the Quantronix laser system seems to give the best results for
pulsed lasers in terms of SE. At the present stage of our preliminary tests, we cannot conclude on what is the key factor
between the 532-nm wavelength and its importance for the energy coupling efficiency, and the specific values used for
pulse duration (128 ns), repetition rate (a few tens of kHz) and related duty cycle.

5. CONCLUSION
Although our experimental results for laser rock drilling are very preliminary, the large range of laser parameters that we
tested led to interesting new results that were not published before to our knowledge. In the case of laser rock drilling
using cw laser sources, our results are similar to what was observed in previous works [4,5,7], although we did not use any
purging system. However, the range covered by the different laser parameters, in particular in the case of total irradiation
time, is much larger in this preliminary study. The similarity of our test results for Indiana limestone and Berea Gray
sandstone is also consistent with previous works. In terms of specific energy value, the CO2 laser gave the best results,
not very far from typical values for rotary drilling. However, because of their usually larger footprint compared to high
power fiber lasers having similar output powers, and because of their much lower wall-plug efficiency, CO2 laser
systems could hardly be deployed in a cost effective way for oil and gas well drilling. Moreover, contrary to the case of
the 1-m range wavelength of fiber lasers, optical fibers for the delivery of the laser power downhole are not available in
the 10-m range wavelength. That limitation makes the design of beam delivery systems at 10 m a very challenging
task.
Our preliminary results relative to the use of pulsed laser sources for rock drilling led us to some interesting analysis and
conclusions. First, there is an advantage in increasing the incident laser pulse peak power density in order to improve
the efficiency of the rock removal mechanism, as long as the melting temperature of the rock is not reached. Second, for
a given average laser output power, increasing the power density by decreasing the laser spot size at the surface of the
rock sample is inefficient and leads to the increase of specific energy, mainly because of the decrease in the volume of
removed rock material. Third, a pulse shaping technology as the one implemented in INO MOPAW laser platform is
advantageous in order to increase the incident pulse peak power density at constant pulse energy density through the
control of pulse duration. Finally, it has been demonstrated that the repetition rate can have a huge effect on specific

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 7386 73860U-10

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 05/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://spiedigitallibrary.org/ss/termsofuse.aspx

 energy. Optimization of the repetition rate and duty cycle might be the path to follow in order to make laser systems
efficient and attractive for oil and gas well drilling applications.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank Axel Meisen, Chair of Foresight at Alberta Research Council (ARC), for his help in
providing INO with reservoir rock samples.

REFERENCES
[1]
http://geology.com/usgs/arctic-oil-and-gas-report.shtml
[2]
Dallimore, S.R. (ed.), and Collett, T.S. (ed.), [Scientific Results from the Mallik 2002 Gas Hydrate Production
Research Well Program, Mackenzie Delta, Northwest Territories, Canada], Geological Survey of Canada, Bulletin
585, 140 pages (2005).
[3]
Mustafiz, S., Bjorndalen, N., and Islam, M.R., Lasing into the Future: Potentials of Laser Drilling in the Petroleum
Industry, Petroleum Science and Technology, Vol. 22, Nos 9 & 10, 1187-1198 (2004).
[4]
Xu, Z., Reed, C.B., Parker, R., and Graves, R., Laser spallation of rocks for oil well drilling, ICALEO Proc. 23rd
International Congress on Applications of Lasers and Electro-Optics (2004).
[5]
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, Proc. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 1211-1221 (2001).
[6]
Leong, K., Xu, Z., and Reed, C., Drilling rock, Industrial Laser Solutions 18(3) (2003).
[7]
Xu, Z., Reed, C.B., Konercki, G., Parker, R.A., Gahan, B.C., Batarseh, S., Graves, R.M., Figueroa, H., and Skinner,
N., Specific energy for pulsed laser rock drilling, J. Laser Applications 15(1), 25-30 (2003).
[8]
Gay, D., Cournoyer, A., Deladurantaye, P., Briand, M., Roy, V., Labranche, B., Levesque, M., and Taillon, Y.,
"Micro-milling process improvement using an agile pulse-shaping fiber laser", Proc. SPIE on Conference Photonics
North 2009, to be published.
[9]
Ready, J.F., [Guide to Laser Materials Processing], edited by S.S. Charschan, Laser Institute of America, Orlando,
Chapter 5: Absorption of Laser Energy, 73-95 (1993).

Proc. of SPIE Vol. 7386 73860U-11

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 05/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://spiedigitallibrary.org/ss/termsofuse.aspx