MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986687085 · doi:10.2118/103087-ms

Portable Multiphase Production Tester for High-Water-Cut Wells

2006· article· en· W1986687085 on OpenAlexaff
Ken Oglesby, Parviz Mehdizadeh, G. J. Rodger

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFlow Measurement and Analysis
Canadian institutionsImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeparator (oil production)Metering modePetroleum engineeringMetreEnvironmental scienceMultiphase flowEngineeringMarine engineeringProcess engineeringMechanical engineeringMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Accurate well testing is required for making intelligent decisions on oil and gas production wells. This paper reports on an effort to assess the application of multiphase metering technology to high water-cut (75+% water) and high volume production wells, as found in many North American Mid-Continent brown fields. A portable multiphase oil, water and gas production well tester was designed and field tested for these wells. Key components of the trailer mounted and battery operated tester are: a compact gas-liquid cylindrical cyclonic (GLCC) separator with control valves, GLCC bypass valving, coriolis liquid meter, infrared water-cut meter, vortex shedding gas meter and a data acquisition unit. One key finding is that separation is not needed in many such applications, thereby significantly reducing the size, weight and cost of future testers. This is due to the inherent downhole well separation and annulus venting used in most such well configurations along with specific coriolis/water-cut meter combinations allowing accurate measurements with gas content up to 10 to 20% GVF.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations10
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Annual Technical Conference and ExhibitionSame topicFlow Measurement and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207