MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998399676 · doi:10.2118/0510-0052-jpt

Analysis of Inflow-Control Devices

2010· article· en· W1998399676 on OpenAlex
Dennis Denney

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Petroleum Technology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPressure dropInflowPetroleum engineeringDrop (telecommunication)Volumetric flow rateOil wellSubmarine pipelineEnvironmental sciencePressure controlNozzleCompletion (oil and gas wells)GeologyMechanicsEngineeringGeotechnical engineeringMechanical engineeringOceanographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article, written by Senior Technology Editor Dennis Denney, contains highlights of paper SPE 122824, ’Analysis of Inflow-Control Devices,’ by Bernt S. Aadnoy, SPE, University of Stavanger, and Geir Hareland, SPE, University of Calgary, prepared for the 2009 SPE Offshore Europe Oil & Gas Conference & Exhibition, Aberdeen, 8-11 September. Inflow-control devices (ICDs) were developed to avoid water-coning problems in long horizontal wells. The model for the ICD consists of pressure-drop equations from the reservoir, through the screen, the flow conduit, the ICD nozzle, and into the production tubing, along with pressure drop through the lower-completion system. Evaluating the model shows that turbulent flow through the ICD dominates the pressure drop, indicating density-controlled flow. The flow rate will vary with depletion. A new ICD concept can maintain constant flow regardless of the degree of field depletion. Introduction Long horizontal production tubing results in a considerable pressure drop over its length. Oil produced at the far end (the toe) must overcome this pressure drop. Oil produced at the near end (the heel) is not affected by this pressure drop. Therefore, assuming homogeneous reservoir characteristics, the flow rate is higher at the heel than at the toe. Because the area close to the heel will produce more liquid hydrocarbons, the result is coning of the water/oil contact (WOC) or the gas/oil contact (GOC), as shown in Fig. 1. When the WOC or GOC reaches the wellbore, the process will accelerate. Over time, as water production increases, oil production decreases and produced-water disposal can become a problem. Most of the oil near the toe will not be produced, and new wells will be required to drain it. The recovery aspect is of utmost importance for these types of wells. To control and equalize the horizontal-well drawdown, ICDs are installed along the production tubing. By applying flow restrictions, coning can be reduced or controlled. Ideally, the entire WOC or GOC should be parallel to the production tubing as shown in Fig. 2. If the waterfront enters the tubing over the entire length at the depleted stage, ultimate recovery has taken place. Hydraulic Model In a typical ICD tool, screens are wound over base pipes. Axial rods provide standoff of the screen from the base-pipe surface and provide a conduit for reservoir fluid to flow toward the ICD. The ICD is installed at one end of the base pipe. Reservoir oil flows through the screens into a pathway (conduit) along the base pipe. Going through the pathway shown in Fig. 3, the oil enters a chamber before going through orifices. After passing through the orifices, the oil flows through several large holes inside the casing. The orifices control the flow rate. The coupled flow model includes the pressure drop from the reservoir through the ICD and into the base pipe. The flow and pressure analysis detailed in the full-length paper is based on a typical ICD application in the North Sea. The flow path is coupled by a series of pressure losses and broken into the following components. Outside screen Conduit below the screen Chamber Orifices Holes through the casing

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.

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 score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.242 · 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