Large Diameter Coiled Tubing Becomes Available Safely Offshore Through a Newly Developed Spoolable Connector: Case Histories and Field Implementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Coiled Tubing operations in the North Sea are regularly challenged by crane lift capacity limitations when attempting to bring coiled tubing reels onboard. Very often the crane capacity or weather conditions determine the CT size to be used for the application, leading to operations conducted with less then the optimum CT size. The Norwegian sector generally has larger capacity cranes but most operations regularly involve the use of large OD coiled tubing (2.375" or 2.875"). The lengths required can cause logistical problems due to the lifting weights of the CT reels used. Current methods utilised for keeping weights as low as possible involve using so called split reel systems and thin-walled high strength parallel CT strings (i.e. constant wall thickness). While these weight reducing measures have proven themselves for many years now in the Norwegian sector, they can not resolve equipment weight issues in all cases. The joining of 2 or more separate strings together offshore by installing butt welds has been standard practice in the UK sector for many years now, mainly involving CT sizes of up to 1.75". In the Norwegian sector, butt-weld failures have occurred when using larger CT sizes and operators have been seeking a viable option to butt-welding, especially for larger OD CT. In response to a direct request by the BJ Services North Sea operations departments, BJ Services Coiled Tubing Research & Engineering group in Calgary, Canada have developed and commercialised a LCF (Low Cycle Fatigue) Spoolable Connector to replace offshore butt-welding and resolve weight issues associated with heavy CT reels.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".