Notice bibliographique
Résumé
After reviewing paper abstracts from many SPE venues for this last year, it became clear that coiled-tubing (CT) drilling is still generating much interest in the oil field. Yet with all the interest, few (perhaps with the exception the Canadians) are actually applying the technology in their wells. CT drilling is still striving for recognition, acceptance, and maybe just a little respect, as it has for longer than most would realize. While researching material for a presentation several years ago, I found it surprising to discover just how old the concept of CT drilling really is. Most would guess CT-drilling technology dates back to the early to mid-1990s, and some of the CT-savvy Canadians often will move that date back to the early 1970s. However, the US patent office contains information disclosing the idea of using reeled conduits for "well boring" with a filing date of May 1926. While this early concept discussed the use of hose as a conduit, the idea of using rigid pipe for "well drilling" has a filed date of February 1948. Interestingly, these ideas were not just paper patents—the technology was applied in various forms starting in the mid-1930s. Over the ensuing years, CT-drilling technology was used both onshore and offshore. Discussions of the success in this early work include a phrase that still is used to describe some CT-drilling activities today: "It was a technical success." While many will argue the merits of the use of CT-drilling equipment in an arena that often is considered the exclusive domain of rotary-drilling technology, fewer will question the value of CT to fill other completion voids previously performed by a drilling unit. One such example is CT fracturing, which gained rapid acceptance in many areas throughout the world as a viable tool to quickly, efficiently, and economically isolate and fracture numerous pay zones in well. And with the advent of high-angle and horizontal wells, many areas throughout the world use CT to perform tasks normally associated with slickline, wireline, or jointed-pipe techniques. Dozens of companies are providing new tools that enable CT to perform these needed functions economically, as documented in SPE papers. Considering history, CT-drilling units will not displace rotary-drilling units. Neither will CT units make slickline, wireline, or snubbing units obsolete. However, if properly engineered and applied, CT's versatility allows it to perform a wide variety of services throughout the drilling, completion, and intervention arenas. This year's SPE papers validate this claim. Coiled Tubing Applications additional reading available at the SPE eLibrary: www.spe.org SPE 101065 "Near a Kilometer of Perforating Guns, in a 71/2-km, Extended-Reach Well—Coiled Tubing Shows Its Mettle in New Zealand" by P. Bartholomew, Shell Todd Oil Services, et al. SPE 106907 "Successful Application of Underbalanced Coiled-Tubing Drilling in Horizontal Short-Radius Re-entry Well in Hassi Messaoud, Algeria" by Bachir Ben Amor, Sonatrach, et al. SPE 102608 "3D Managed-Pressure Drilling Around a Salt Dome Using Coiled Tubing: A Case Study—Challenges and Solutions" by Abdul Mujeer Abdul Rehman, SPE, Maharashtra Institute of Technology SPE 102661 "Fill Cleanout With Coiled Tubing in the Reverse Circulation Mode" by J. Li, BJ Services, et al. SPE 107113 "Fatigue Life of Coiled Tubing With External Mechanical Damage" by T. Padron, BJ Services, et al.
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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| 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 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».