MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000664733 · doi:10.2118/163512-pa

On the Shear Degradation of Lost-Circulation Materials

2014· article· en· W2000664733 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Drilling & Completion · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDrilling and Well Engineering
Canadian institutionsExxonMobil (Canada)
FundersExxon Mobil Corporation
KeywordsLost circulationDrilling fluidPetroleum engineeringUnderbalanced drillingAnnulus (botany)DrillingCirculation (fluid dynamics)WellboreGeologyDegradation (telecommunications)RheologyGeotechnical engineeringMechanicsEngineeringMaterials scienceMechanical engineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Lost-circulation materials (LCMs) are widely used to mitigate fluid loss when drilling permeable zones. Their effectiveness, however, generally declines with circulation time, and this decline is linked to the reduction in the average size of the solids components, or “shear degradation.” In this paper, dimensional analysis and first-principle physics are used to frame those mechanisms into a scientific definition that directly connects the progressive LCM size reduction to operational parameters such as the densities of particles and suspending fluid, the size of particles, and the fluid viscosity. The introduction of large-sized materials in the drilling-mud circulation system has become a common practice during the past few decades for the mitigation of lost circulation while drilling in permeable intervals. Solids with an average diameter larger than 100 μm are carried with the drilling mud and, when fractures occur, they deposit in the fractures or at the opening of the fractures, successfully blocking the discharge of fluid out of the wellbore. The effectiveness of such material was observed, however, to decline over time as the drilling mud circulates through the mud pumps, the drillstring, the bit nozzles, the wellbore annulus, and the mud-recycling system. The decline over time in the effectiveness of the so-called LCMs and loss-prevention materials (LPMs) during drilling is widely linked to the degradation of the LCM/LPM components that have an average size that drops with circulation time. A large amount of literature in the petroleum industry is dedicated to the investigation of the issue, and numerous experimental studies have attempted to quantify the LCM degradation by reproducing the root phenomena in the laboratory. The concept of “shear degradation” has thus become a synonym for such studies, and it is widely used for the selection of materials to be used in drilling operations. In the present paper, a harder look is taken on the very concept of “shear degradation” and on its effectiveness in capturing the progressive size reduction of LCM during circulation. By use of dimensional analysis, the tendency of a material to degrade can be determined in advance, whereby the density of the particles and suspending fluid, the size of particles, and the fluid viscosity are examined as the governing parameters. Understanding the underlying physics enables the selection of a more-shear-resistant engineered-particle drilling fluid, regardless of its application.

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 score0.312
Threshold uncertainty score0.391

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.181 · 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