Simultaneous Dynamic Killing and Cementing of a Live Well
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Drilling with casing is a method of drilling wells using casing as the drillstring. This method has been used in South Texas to reduce well costs. To help reduce well costs even further, underbalanced drilling seemed to have the potential of enabling the elimination of an intermediate casing string. By drilling underbalanced, it would be possible to drill with a mud weight low enough to prevent loss of circulation in the shallow weak zones while dealing with the gas from the pay zones below. Drilling with casing eliminates the necessity of trips, thus simplifying underbalanced operations. However, once total depth (TD) was reached and drilling complete, it would be necessary to balance the well to allow cementing of the production casing string. The challenge was to develop a way to kill the well so that the cement could be placed and allowed to set while at the same time not breaking down and losing circulation into the weak upper zones. This had to be done by having different equivalent circulating densities (ECD) and equivalent mud weights (EMW) up and down the hole throughout the circulating and cementing operation. In addition, this technique needed to be relatively simple and easily accomplished in the field. All this had to be done without shutting in the well or using chokes, since that would also cause breaking down the upper zone and result in an underground blowout. This paper describes the development of the required methodology and its successful field application in South Texas. This same technique can readily be applied elsewhere.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".