MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987342165 · doi:10.2118/87136-ms

Barite-Sag Management: Challenges, Strategies, Opportunities

2004· article· en· W1987342165 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paul D. Scott, Mario Zamora, Catalin Aldea

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDrilling and Well Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUSableDrillingPetroleum engineeringPetroleum industryGeologyRisk analysis (engineering)Computer scienceEngineeringBusinessMechanical engineeringPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Barite sag continues to be a recurring, potentially serious problem on many directional wells. Despite concerted efforts by the drilling industry and early progress, recent continued improvements in sag mitigation have been limited. Sag is a particular problem on HTHP wells and in deepwater wells where ECD management is required. These wells pose difficult drilling conditions where drilling practices may offset sag-management advancements. The sag "magic bullet" has thus far been elusive. This is understandable since sag is affected by many parameters and their interactions are difficult to quantify. While the importance of mud rheology is well known, attempts to find the key rheological parameter have not been completely successful. Furthermore, lack of industry standards to measure and report barite sag has limited the availability of usable field data. Sound engineering strategies and guidelines have helped, but clearly more developments are needed. The primary objectives of this paper are to (a) examine key barite-sag challenges, (b) characterize current best practices, and (c) discuss strategies, opportunities, and active programs for step improvements. Recent barite-sag case histories from the Gulf of Mexico, West Africa, and Atlantic Canada are included to set the proper perspectives.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.592

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.155 · 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

Citations25
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDrilling and Well EngineeringFrench-language works237,207