Size Degradation of Shale Drill Cuttings in Deepwater Discharge Conditions from Synthetic-Based Drilling Fluids
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Size Degradation of Shale Drill Cuttings in Deepwater Discharge Conditions from Synthetic-Based Drilling Fluids Paul Scott; Paul Scott ConocoPhillips Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar John Candler John Candler M-I SWACO Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Paper presented at the SPE International Conference on Health, Safety and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, April 2010. Paper Number: SPE-126253-MS https://doi.org/10.2118/126253-MS Published: April 12 2010 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Get Permissions Search Site Citation Scott, Paul , and John Candler. "Size Degradation of Shale Drill Cuttings in Deepwater Discharge Conditions from Synthetic-Based Drilling Fluids." Paper presented at the SPE International Conference on Health, Safety and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, April 2010. doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/126253-MS Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex Search Dropdown Menu nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All ContentAll ProceedingsSociety of Petroleum Engineers (SPE)SPE International Conference and Exhibition on Health, Safety, Environment, and Sustainability Search Advanced Search Abstract Shale drill cuttings exposed to synthetic-based drilling fluids (SBDF) processed by cuttings dryers were studied under simulated deepwater discharge conditions and found to size degrade with time. This hydration and size degradation is similar to what occurs with water-based cuttings. Lower retention on cuttings and wider dispersion of discharged cuttings results in lower organic enrichment, which reduces potential seafloor impacts from deepwater drilling operations.While this was indicated in previous studies, it had not been confirmed with laboratory studies that simulate deepwater conditions. Previous studies reported settling velocities after exposure to seawater for only a few minutes. A cutting may settle at speeds that allow exposure to seawater for 0.9 to 3 hours for each 3,280 ft (1,000 m) of water depth.A flow loop was constructed to expose cuttings to seawater for extended time periods and separate the cuttings into fractions of four different settling velocities. Changes in each fraction with increased time indicate changes in settling velocity distribution. The flow loop consists of a series of increasing larger clear vertical tubes where smaller particles carry over to larger lower velocity columns. An initial experiment with inert solids plus three different shale cuttings were tested. The concentration of synthetic on initial and final samples was measured and correlated to size. Video photography was used to document and characterize cuttings behavior.Current discharge models do not include the effect of size degradation on reduced fall velocity for deepwater discharges. Reduced fall velocity causes a wider aerial dispersion that reduces the potential for the formation of significant cuttings accumulation and reduced environmental impact. Accurate cuttings size is needed to determine a fall velocity and accurately predict the distribution of drill cuttings discharged into the ocean. Data from previous fall velocity studies and field monitoring studies will be presented and discussed. Keywords: base fluid content, drilling fluid property, spe 126253, shale drill, drilling fluid selection and formulation, upstream oil & gas, particle, size degradation, seawater, drilling fluid formulation Subjects: Drilling Fluids and Materials, Drilling fluid selection and formulation (chemistry, properties) Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers You can access this article if you purchase or spend a download.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».