MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029956430 · doi:10.2118/150941-pa

Advanced Drilling Simulation Environment for Testing New Drilling Automation Techniques and Practices

2012· article· en· W2029956430 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 · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDrilling and Well Engineering
Canadian institutionsConocoPhillips (Canada)
FundersNorges Forskningsråd
KeywordsAutomationDrillingMeasurement while drillingProcess (computing)Drilling fluidDrilling rigEngineeringSimulationComputer scienceMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Newly developed drilling automation systems locate a computer interface between commands issued by the driller and instructions transmitted to the drilling machinery. Such functions are capable of faster and more precise control than can be achieved by an unaided operator and thus can help drilling within narrow margins. To ensure that these systems work properly in all circumstances, an advanced drilling simulator has been developed to enable testing under a wide range of simulated conditions. The environment described in this paper uses hardware in the loop (HIL) simulation to verify that the automation techniques being tested respond correctly in real time. Rigorously validated physical models of the drilling process simulate the response of the well to the commands given to the drilling machines. Abnormal drilling conditions (e.g., packoffs, kicks) and equipment or machine-related problems (e.g., plugged nozzles, power shortage) are convincingly recreated. The drilling simulator models the behavior of surface equipment such as the activation of gate valves to line up different pits or the flow in the mud return. It simulates changes in the drilling fluid properties when mixing additives to the mud. It is therefore possible to focus training sessions on cooperation between different groups at the wellsite. This is particularly useful when planning the introduction of drilling automation that involves new work procedures as a result of automation and adaptation of the drilling team to a new operational environment. Drilling operations are becoming more and more complex. Automation has the potential to provide large improvements in efficiency and safety, but automation technologies must be implemented correctly at the workplace. Just as the aviation industry has used simulated environments for decades, drilling simulation environments are the key to the safe and successful implementation of drilling automation and the development of crew skills to face future challenges.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.651
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.237 · 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