MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988309377 · doi:10.2118/2005-254

A Laboratory Study With Field Data of Downhole Gas Separators

2005· article· en· W1988309377 on OpenAlexaff
J. N. McCoy, J.C. Patterson, A. L. Podio

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian International Petroleum Conference · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDrilling and Well Engineering
Canadian institutionsConocoPhillips (Canada)
FundersConocoPhillips
KeywordsPetroleum engineeringField (mathematics)Natural gas fieldComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceGeologyEngineeringWaste managementNatural gas

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Downhole gas separators are often the most inefficient part of a sucker rod pump system. This paper presents laboratory data on the performance of five different gas separator designs. Only continuous flow was studied. Field data is presented on one of the designs. The field data indicates that success or failure of the gas separator is dependent upon the fluids and wellbore pressures as well as the mechanical design of the gas separator. Successful and unsuccessful examples of gas separator performance in the field are shown along with field fluid data properties. Videos will be shown at the presentation of the continuous and intermittent flow of water and air through the transparent gas separators placed in transparent casing. While the study is not completed, this is the first of hopefully several papers that will present the results of this investigation. Introduction Patterson1 studied some different down-hole gas separation designs for coal bed methane operations in Wyoming. In these designs the inlet to the gas separators were smaller than normally used and along with some baffles, thought to allow gas to vent from inside the gas separator, obtained good gas separation in the field installation. While field installations provide the ultimate validation of gas separator performance, it is extremely difficult to isolate the influence of each design parameter. It was these installations which prompted the laboratory study of the gas separator geometry to understand if the "rules-of-thumb" used by the industry for gas separator design were valid. One of the most common sources of inefficiency in oil well pumping installations (rod pumps, ESPs of PC pumps alike) is gas interference, which prevents the pump from delivering liquid at the design rate. Although this is a well known effect, there seems to be limited understanding of the mechanisms that control gas interference and this often results in the use of remedies, such as installing downhole gas separators, that are ineffective or even detrimental to the pumping system performance. The objectives of this paper are to give a clearer insight on the mechanisms of gas interference in pumping wells and to present the results of recent laboratory and field studies on the flow characteristics and performance of some downhole gas separators. In a pumping installation, one of the principal functions of the wellbore is to operate as a two-phase (gas-liquid) separator so that the pump (which is designed to pump liquid) can operate efficiently. Although this concept appears to be obvious, it seems to be totally ignored by most operators when they design completions and install hardware (gas anchors and the like) to combat the effects of gas interference. In these applications, the separation of gas from liquid is achieved through GRAVITY separation without the introduction of other mechanisms (centrifugal forces, nozzles, etc.). Thus, the difference in density between the gas and liquid is the main driving force to be used for separation. This also implies that forces that oppose the effect of gravity, such as viscous drag caused by high fluid velocity and turbulence, will be detrimental to the separation process.

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 score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score0.917

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations5
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian International Petroleum ConferenceSame topicDrilling and Well EngineeringFrench-language works237,207