How Much is Left of Your Centralizer After Exiting a Casing Window in an Extended-Reach Horizontal Multilateral? Modeling, Yard Tests, and Field Results from Alaska's West Sak Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The West Sak viscous oilfield on the North Slope of Alaska is currently being developed with extended reach multilateral wells, with departure to depth ratios up to 5 to 1, in which horizontal slotted liners are utilized in conjunction with a TAML level 3 multilateral junction system. Centralizers are considered necessary on the slotted liners to avoid slot plugging, reduce drag, and limit differential sticking. Selection of proper centralizers to run through a casing exit, without a whipstock in place, has been key to ensuring a successful multilateral installation. Several failures of centralizers run on liners through casing exits have resulted in significant drilling lost time associated with fishing and milling pieces of centralizers in order to place the wells into proper service. After three such failures, the requirement to study the passage of a centralized liner through a casing exit became essential. A surface test fixture was utilized to simulate liners run through a casing exit to test several potential centralizer candidates using the loads estimated from modeling. Torque and drag modeling provided the side force estimates exerted on the liner and centralizer as they passed through a casing exit. This paper will the discuss the liner centralizer installation problems prior to the testing program, detail the modeling used to determine the loads exerted on the centralizer at the casing exit, show the results of the yard tests conducted on several commonly utilized industry centralizers, and make recommendations for proper liner centralization in multilaterals.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".