High-Angle Gas Lift Valve Removal and Replacement in a Single Run
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An operator in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska required the ability to replace gas lift valves in their completion for improved oil production. Conventional methods had reached their limits due to extended well lengths and high-angle well deviations. Slickline was unable to overcome the higher deviations, while imprecise depth control during coiled tubing operations required multiple run-in-hole attempts to pull and replace the valve. Based on previous, positive experiences with electric line - mechanical solutions, the customer chose a unique solution using a newly modified Kick-Over Tool (KOT). Two KOTs run in tandem and combined with a tractor and a hydraulic stroking tool (HST) were used to pull the existing gas lift valve (GLV) and replace it in a single run. The tractor conveyed the tool string to the correct depth where the HST and the first KOT provided the pulling force for removal. Then, the HST and second KOT were used to successfully install the new GLV into the mandrel. The operator is now able to optimize their gas lift design without the limitations imposed by conventional means for installing GLVs such as slickline and coiled tubing. This allows them to place gas lift valves in the high angle sections when necessary for increased oil recovery from their reservoirs. Few changes have been made to the Kick-Over Tool technology in the past 40 years but it has been recently improved to operate more reliably in deviated and horizontal wells and has been modified to accommodate the forces generated by the HST. This paper will describe the challenges with the planning and execution of this operation and the implications for future gas lift design.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".