MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2065959363 · doi:10.2118/2004-090

Use of Cement as Lost-Circulation Material: Best Practices

2004· article· en· W2065959363 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian International Petroleum Conference · 2004
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueInnovations in Concrete and Construction Materials
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Alberta
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCementLost circulationCirculation (fluid dynamics)Computer sciencePetroleum engineeringMaterials scienceGeologyEngineeringMechanical engineeringComposite materialAerospace engineering

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Fluid loss is encountered in almost all drilling operations. Depending on the severity of lost circulation and the size and type of the thief zone, different lost-circulation materials (LCMs) are used for curing. Cement is one of the most common LCMs. Various types of cement have been used as LCMs in the past. Recent developments in cement technology and the understanding of lost circulation have produced customdesigned applications utilizing effective cement types and compositions. Applications also vary depending on the drilling fluid type and its properties. Custom-designed applications include thixotropic and ultrathixotropic cement slurries; slurries containing cello flakes, mica, and CaCO3 for mechanical bridging; unique spacers and surfactant packages; and foamed cement for controlling loss. Selection of proper cement type and injection procedure calls for specific information such as formation properties, wellbore conditions, and thief zone characteristics. Laboratory experiments are recommended in this process. Field observations are also critical in making the final decision for selecting the optimum treatment fluid train and application strategy. This paper discusses the application of various cement types (and process designs) as LCMs. Solutions to problematic field cases are provided. The criterion for selecting the best cement compositions is outlined. Optimal strategies are also presented. Introduction Lost circulation is the partial or complete loss of drilling fluid or cement during drilling, circulation, running casing, or cementing operations. According to a 1991 API survey, lost circulation occurs during drilling on approximately 20 to 25% of wells drilled worldwide.1 Loss of drilling fluid can result in increased cost, loss of time, plugging of potentially productive zones, blowouts from decreased hydrostatic pressure in formations other than the thief zone, excessive inflow of water, and excessive caving of the formation. Therefore, application of an immediate solution to lost circulation is an essential part of drilling engineering. Lost circulation occurs through existing high-permeability zones such as highly fractured, vuggy, or cavernous structures or induced fractures when the hydrostatic pressure of drilling fluid exceeds the breaking strength of the formation. Carbonates are good examples of the former case, while the latter types typically occur in sandstones. For lost circulation to occur, the size of the pore openings of the included fractures must be larger than the size of the solid particles in the drilling fluid. Lost circulation in naturally fractured, cavernous/vugular and unconsolidated formations cannot be avoided completely. The following preventive measures can be used however in other cases:1set casing to protect weak formations,maintain a minimum safe drilling fluid density,avoid excessive downhole pressures caused by improper drilling fluid rheology, hydraulics, high flow rate, thick filter cakes, surge pressures during tripping in the well, bridges occurring in the annulus, and high shut-in surface pressures. Problems that emerge due to lost circulation in the early and later stages of the drilling operation are different. For example, in surface holes, lost circulation has been known to cause massive washouts that in extreme cases, lead to the loss of the drilling rig.

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.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,703
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,053
Tête enseignante GPT0,270
Écart entre enseignants0,217 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle