MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001655627 · doi:10.2118/79810-ms

Challenges of Drilling an Ultra-Deep Well in Deepwater – Spa Prospect

2003· article· en· W2001655627 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen A. Rohleder, W. Wayne Sanders, Roger N. Williamson, Gary L. Faul, Lynn B. Dooley

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDrilling and Well Engineering
Canadian institutionsConocoPhillips (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWellheadDeepwater drillingDrillingDrillGeologyWellboreBoreholeDrill stringPetroleum engineeringCasingCompletion (oil and gas wells)Mining engineeringEngineeringGeotechnical engineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Conoco drilled the Spa Prospect, Walker Ridge 285 #1, in the Gulf of Mexico to a depth of 29,452' MD / 29,434' TVD. The Spa Prospect was a subsalt well encountering approximately 9,981' of salt. The Transocean Deepwater Pathfinder, a dynamically positioned drillship, was utilized to drill this well in 6,654' of water. Original planned total depth for the well was 31,600' MD / 31,000' TVD. This represented one of the deepest wells ever planned in the Gulf of Mexico. All geologic objectives were reached by 29,452' and drilling operations were terminated. This paper describes the challenges involved with planning the well, documents the execution, and concludes with lessons learned. The well planning included the following: Location selection criteria for avoiding shallow hazards while meeting geological objections,Pre-drill pore pressure and fracture gradient estimation,Hydraulics design and its relationship to drill string selection,Casing and wellhead program objectives,Landing string design,Lost circulation assessment,Mitigation of annular pressure in trapped annuli, andThe implementation of test rams to reduce BOP testing times. The execution section of the paper describes experiences encountered and the technologies utilized.

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 score0.688
Threshold uncertainty score0.571

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations32
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDrilling and Well EngineeringFrench-language works237,207