Environmental Risk and Well Integrity of Plugged and Abandoned Wells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper is the third in a series of environmental risk assessments covering hydraulic fracturing (SPE 152596) and well construction (SPE 166142). Risk assessment and well failure from SPE literature and governmental agencies have been used to construct a detailed but non-company associated study of plug and abandonment (P&A) objectives, problems, best practices, application details and methods. The objective is to identify technology improvements as well as potential or proven problem areas. Technology gaps will be related where they are identified by either problem reports or failures. Case histories have been captured that illustrate a variety of abandonment reasons and approaches in plug setting, isolation and testing/monitoring methods. The study well groupings are divided by age and era or vintage of abandonment to examine the worth of technologies in force at the time of abandonment. Well age, well type and general geographic influences are presented with notation of specific problems and conditions that challenged effective isolation. Special attention will be paid to cases of failed isolation as cited by the governmental inspection and/or governing body as well as repair methods that restore integrity. Attention will also be given to problems encountered in older wells. Lessons gleaned from this study will be of value to well construction and operational maintenance with consideration paid to well type, geological hazards, production history and durability of the isolation seal.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".