Reducing Drilling Costs Through the Successful Implementation of a One-Run Monobore Well Strategy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract As horizontal drilling programs continue to proliferate across the industry, and new technologies and operational practices are developed and advanced, the reality of a one-run well has emerged. In various applications across several provinces in Western Canada, the ultimate goal of drilling a horizontal well in one run from surface casing has been realized. This success comes as a function of the combined effort of the operator, directional drilling company and PDC bit company to solve the multitude of technical challenges facing a monobore strategy in areas with hole stability issues. While many horizontal applications are now utilizing a monobore (one hole size) well plan below surface casing, the vast majority of those applications have one critical aspect in common - the upper hole sections are in very stable formations that can be left open for long periods of time. This is a critical aspect due to the fact that nearly all horizontal wells require multiple bits and multiple BHA configurations to reach total depth (TD). In areas where hole stability is an issue, an intermediate hole section is typically included in the well plan to seal off the unstable formations to allow the lateral interval of the well to be completed. In addition to the added time and costs required to set an intermediate string of casing, this type of well plan also results in a smaller hole size in the horizontal section. In order to complete a horizontal monobore well through unstable formations, the well must be drilled in a very short period of time and must be drilled with excellent hole quality to eliminate any issues with rapidly completing the wells. This paper will detail a variety of these types of applications that successfully reached TD in 4-6 days from surface casing and were completed without problems. This rapid monobore well approach leads to both huge cost savings for the well and a larger hole size in the reservoir for improved production. The result is more economical wells, drilled in much less time than conventional wells that yield greater returns.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".