Techbits: ATW Leads to Formation of Group To Promote In-well and Subsea-Based Fiber-Optic Monitoring Systems
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
After the first in-well optical-sensing-system installation in 1993, the oil and gas industry has been pursuing optical sensing as a means of improving reliability and developing new capabilities for in-well reservoir-monitoring applications. Since that first installation, the industry has built a track record with more than 100 installations of permanent pressure and temperature gauges, optical flowmeters, and seismic arrays and hundreds of distributed-temperature-sensing (DTS) installations. But virtually all of these installations have been in dry-tree and land wells. In 2005, discussions began on soliciting SPE's help in organizing an Applied Technology Workshop (ATW) that would increase awareness in the upstream industry of the potential for widened application of in-well optical-sensing systems in subsea applications and help identify the challenges and barriers facing widespread market acceptance—and then possibly lead to a plan that addresses these obstacles. After a full year of preparation, an SPE ATW titled "In-Well Optical Sensing—Subsea Well Applications: Are We Ready?" was held in February 2006 in Galveston, Texas. Cochairing the event were Brian Drakeley (Weatherford International) and Brock Williams (BP), and they were joined on the Technical Program Committee by Lars Vinje (Statoil), Herbert Lescanne (Total), Brian Llewellyn (Chevron), Rod Fors (Shell), Garth Naldrett (now of FloDynamic), Ted Drell (FMC Technologies), and Matthew Smith (Deutsch), representing a cross section of companies involved with this emerging technology. The workshop was attended by approximately 130 people from Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Indonesia, Japan, Norway, the United Kingdom, and the US. Informative educational sessions were held, starting with presentations covering the types of in-well optical-sensing systems currently available and those under development. These includedPressure and temperature sensorsFlow and fraction metersOptical accelerometers for seismic sensingDistributed temperature sensingDistributed pressure sensing A number of case histories for these systems were also presented, which varied from the good to the bad to the downright ugly! The openness and honesty of a number of the presentations and the ensuing discussions were very much appreciated by those present and set the ATW off to an excellent start.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».