MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985697642 · doi:10.2118/2005-156

Sand Production Prediction in Oil Wellbores: A Set of Criteria for Design of Reticulated Expandable Completion Techniques Based on Large-Scale Transient Experiments

2005· article· en· W1985697642 on OpenAlexaff
Alireza Nouri, Hans Vaziri, Ergün Kuru, Rakib Islam

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian International Petroleum Conference · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransient (computer programming)Scale (ratio)Completion (oil and gas wells)Production (economics)Transient analysisComputer scienceOil productionSet (abstract data type)Petroleum engineeringEngineering drawingEngineeringTransient responsePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper provides criteria for assessing whether sanding has the possibility to occur in the wellbores that are completed by reticulated expandable completion techniques. It also presents an in-depth understanding of the mechanism under which such completion techniques control mobilization of sand grains and evaluates their long-term performance and effectiveness. A series of experiments were conducted using unconsolidated as well as weakly consolidated hollow cylinder samples to investigate the issues involved. A stiffener supported the central hole which is representative of a reticulated expandable completion technique. This was to verify whether sanding can take place when the wellbore is supported by the stiffener and if so, what influence the opening size relative to the grain size has in dictating the operational limits. Experiments were conducted on both single- and two-phase flow media. This was to explore the possible effect of a second phase in sand production in the presence of the stiffener. The experiments on weakly-consolidated sandstones showed that expandable completions were successful in preventing any shear failure around the wellbore. Under excessive drawdown/depletion, pore collapse proved to be a possible failure mechanism in the material. Nevertheless, much less sanding occurred and this improvement was attributed to grain to grain friction, enhancements of effective stresses at the wellface, and some degree of conservation of the original structure of the material. The amount of sanding at an aperture size as much as 10 times the maximum and 20 times the mean grain sizes was still very small. Experiments on unconsolidated sandstones showed that the friction between the grains mobilized by high normal stresses at grain to grain contacts played a major role in preventing sand production. The aperture size of the liner is another important factor in providing the possibility of grain mobilization. The experiments confirmed that even with a large aperture size of an order of magnitude greater than the maximum grain size, sanding did not take place under routine operational conditions in a two-phase flow medium. On the other hand, instant sanding from the sand-pack in single-phase flow experiments took place which emphasized the important role of capillarity. It was only when the maximum grain size stood at the level of aperture size of the stiffener that sanding was eliminated even under single-phase flow condition. Introduction Several expandable techniques have been implemented by the oil industry (Van Buren et al. 1999; Metcalfe and Whitelaw 1999; Hackworth et al. 2003; Echols et al. 2002; Cuthbertson et al. 2003), and their application is experiencing a rapid growth. These completion techniques are supposed to leave no gaps between the liner and the formation and, as such, avoid shear failure and disaggregation of the material around the wellbore. Although expandable completion techniques have been used in over 1000 wellbores (Gilmer and Emerson 2004), few experimental research studies have been reported on their interaction with the surrounding medium, in terms of their impact on productivity, and possible failure of the medium and its mechanism.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.216
Threshold uncertainty score0.429

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian International Petroleum ConferenceSame topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207