Computation of Sand Production in Water Injectors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A significant proportion of the future oil production is expected to be driven by water injectors and in reservoirs that are sand prone. Achieving sweep efficiency and sand control in such formations is challenging. In many cases the ideal sand control is no sand control (e.g., a C&P completion) requiring rigorous sanding assessment. Sand production in injectors often go unnoticed until it is too late (sand covering the pay) making it difficult to ascertain the specific set of conditions resulting in sanding and the severity of the individual sanding episodes. Based on physics and mechanisms governing sanding, general factors can be postulated on the causes of sanding but not in a quantitative form. To provide a deeper insight into this matter, a numerical study has been undertaken to model sanding in injectors with due account of several inter-coupled factors including injection pressure, crossflow, waterhammer pressure pulses, degradation of the formation matrix resulting from repeated shut-downs and others. This paper describes the concepts used for sand production modelling and shows application of the model to a field problem involving a C&P completion in a sand prone reservoir. The results show the mode and magnitude of sanding are influenced by the rock properties, injection operations and the equipment type and installation. The cases analyzed indicate a correspondence between the rate of shut-in and the onset of sanding. In cases involving unconsolidated sands, the waterhammer effects have a pronounced impact on sanding. Sand control can be omitted in even very weak rocks provided the injection pressure is optimized, frequency of hard shut-downs is controlled and hardware is positioned in such a manner to reduce the waterhammer pressure pulse magnitude. The proposed modeling can be used in determining the sand sump capacity required over the projected life of the well.
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".