Bibliographic record
Abstract
Technology Focus Last April, I had the opportunity to attend the VI Technical Meeting on Well-Engineering Risk Analysis, at Petrobras University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, dedicated entirely to risk management in the area of well engineering. That 3-day meeting gave participants an excellent opportunity to exchange experiences, disseminate know-how and current procedures, and discuss problems and critical developments in the area of risk management for drilling and completion operations. I was amazed by the number of diversified works as well as the quality of the presentations, panels, and roundtables. Several topics related to drilling management were presented including risk management for well-control operations, risks involved in the implementation of new technologies, risk analysis for prediction of time and costs in deepwater drilling and completion, the effect of drilling costs on the evaluation of new exploration opportunities, and many others. It is clear to me that drilling management is related closely to risk management. The correct assessment of all risks involved in drilling operations will provide better planning and consequently will improve operational results. Our featured papers bring some examples of better-quality results obtained through superior planning. Project managers, drilling engineers, drilling supervisors, and field engineers will all benefit from careful planning. As most of us should know by now: "If you fail to plan, then you plan to fail" (Saladis and Kerzner 2009). References Saladis, F.P. and Kerzner, H. 2009. Bringing the PMBOK Guide to Life—A companion for the Practicing Project Manager, 49. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons. Drilling Management additional reading available at OnePetro: www.onepetro.org SPE 119287 • "Probabilistic Well-Time Estimation Revisited" by A.J. Adams, SPE, Nexen Petroleum, et al. SPE 114797 • "Advanced Drilling Simulation Proves Managed-Pressure Drilling (MPD) Economical in Gasfield Developments in Western Canada" by Geir Hareland, SPE, University of Calgary, et al. SPE 120848 • "Systems Approach and Quantitative Decision Tools for Technology Selection in Environmentally Friendly Drilling" by O.-Y. Yu, SPE, Texas A&M University, et al. IPTC 12707 • "Automatic Calibration of Real-Time Computer Models in Intelligent Drilling-Control Systems—Results From a North Sea Field Trial" by H.P. Lohne, SPE, International Research Institute of Stavanger, et al.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".