Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Subsea well intervention has been around in the North Sea for many years as documented in papers such as Pollock (1990) but in the last five years there has been renewed interst due to a combination of high oil price and aging wells. This paper will look at the actual results achieved with production enhancement work done in subsea wells across the United Kingdom (UK) sector of the North Sea over a five year period 2002 to 2007. This time frame allows the results to be seen in the context of longer term field value. All the work included in the paper was done rig-less with a specialist subsea well intervention vessel. It covers a range of different oil producing fields operated by a number of different companies. The work done was through tubing and included zone isolation and re-perforation. No work was done in any gas fields. The paper will detail the production profiles of the wells both before and after the intervention work along with a discussion of the work done and an explanation of the factors that influenced the final result both good and bad. To facilitate an open discussion of the success and failures all data is presented anonymously. The high cost of subsea wells makes it essential to maximise the overall recovery per subsea well. This paper will detail actual results which may point the way forward.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".