MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022771608 · doi:10.2118/97299-ms

Horizontal Screen Failures in Unconsolidated, High-Permeability Sandstone Reservoirs: Reversing the Trend

2005· article· en· W2022771608 on OpenAlexaff
James Arukhe, C. Uchendu, Linus Nwoke

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsShell (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReversingGeologyCompletion (oil and gas wells)Environmental scienceInstallationPermeability (electromagnetism)Petroleum engineeringGeotechnical engineeringCorrosionMining engineeringEngineeringMaterials scienceMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Horizontal screen failures can be serious, resulting in expensive remedial operations including early abandonment, in the extreme case. Globally, screen failures in horizontal wells completed in loose unconsolidated sandstone reservoirs have become common. Consequently, from completion and longevity perspectives, a high percentage of horizontal wells have not achieved the desired result: sand-free, high sustained-productivity producers. Individual companies have performed studies in this direction, and some are still ongoing. From preliminary data available, however, it has been possible to observe trends and determine the failure mechanisms. Failure categories highlighted in this paper include wells with significant impaired productions or those completely plugged, representing an overall failure rate of almost 20%. This paper suggests several levels of screen failure: screen collapse or complete plugging, partially plugged screens (poor performing wells) and those producing unacceptable amounts of sand. Other failures include improper installation and economic failures where fixing the problem is possible but costly. Some wells exhibited ‘’early mortality’’, producing sand at production onset. The study further categorized possible causes of screen failures into three major areas: ➣Screen plugging caused by high-pressure drops across screens, hot spots of localized production, fines and dirty sand.➣Incorrect procedures, materials or equipment selection including trouble installing the screens, corrosion in low spots due to standing acid, generalized corrosion from acids, improper cleanup, ineffective mud removal, ineffective sand control, inappropriate screen selection and erosion.➣Poor reservoir understanding in the areas of grain size distribution, sanding up due to water production, open annular areas due to higher than expected rock strength. This paper reviews various applications of soft rock completions in horizontal service, along with benefits and shortfalls. The performance characteristics of the various screens relative to each other from the perspective of flow capacity, plugging and erosion resistance are examined. Recommendations based on ‘’best practices’’ being adopted to combat screen failure problems in high permeability reservoirs are also showcased.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.236
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations17
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Annual Technical Conference and ExhibitionSame topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir AnalysisFrench-language works237,207