Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by anakaine 2 days ago
If the goal is to simply purge the content of the hole, compressed air is typically sufficient. That said, the wider the hole, and the deeper it is, the harder it is to lift material on air.

To be clear though, I'd love to have one of these rigs on my old project and compare rate of progression and hole quality. Particularly when establishing the hole in sedimentary gravels and clays. I imagine casing will still be required.

One thing that I'd be concerned about is the ability to collect samples if most of the material is being vaporised or melted. Similarly, the cooking of the side of the hole on the way down could make geophysical responses much more difficult to interpret. Sonic velocity would probably increase, televised would probably be harder to interpret, harder to spot hydrothermal infill in sedimentary cover, would it affect gamma tools (probably not)

Edit: also wondering how the hole holds up around aquifers. Does the super heating cause wall instability immediately above the non geothermal aquifers as superheated steam is created? How does this affect the hole stability if we are not casing?

Edit 2: if we are not casing, how does the hole hold up around aquifer sands, loose fill, fractured or brecciated mass?

Edit 3: Also! Do we ream open the top of the hole to down past the last aquifers before the geothermal horizon? If not, how are we stopping stopping aquifers interplay and interaquifer contamination?

3 comments

i think they plan to drill with a traditional rig until they get deep/hot enough to necessitate a switch to mm wave
Great response! I'm just a layman here (former material scientist) but it's fun to think about this stuff!
Maybe you could hook up a mass spectrometer to the purge gas to get real time composition.
perhaps, but usually things like "which fossil species are present" are also utilized to figure out what's going on near the drill bit, like if you're trying to reach oil deposits right along the edge of an old riverbed.

Some shale formations in Michigan, for example, sometimes requires drilling to a 4" thick target. You don't know the exact depth because the depth of that 4" thick layer can vary by many feet from an another spot 100m north/south.

I'm aware that if you search "thickness of Antrim shale" or "thickness of Collingswood shale", Google will happily tell you that it's 20-40 feet thick, but for modern drilling techniques, the economics of the well depend on hitting a much more narrow target than that, which can be delicately guided in by analyzing fossils that come up.