Field-/Well-Integrity Issues, Well-Abandonment Planning, and Workover Operations on an Inadequately Abandoned Well: Peace River, Alberta, Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Maintaining well integrity for field life-cycle operations is a major factor that must be taken into account in the planning and execution of all well-engineering activities. Some legacy wells are not properly abandoned to prevent the contamination of secondary reservoirs or groundwater from other producing hydrocarbons or from emerging carbon-capture and acid-gas-storage projects being planned by both oil and gas operators and government research groups. If these wells are not identified and abandoned properly, there is a high risk of negative impact to the environment, operator reputation, and the economics of field operations. This case study will examine the complex re-entry and reabandonment of a well in the Peace River region of Alberta, Canada. In the process of developing the plan to re-enter and abandon this well, a methodology for abandonment planning was adopted with three essential attributes: The abandonment should provide effective isolation of all critical zones; operations should allow for evaluation and confirmation of zonal isolation; and the final condition of the well should allow for a simple re-entry to remediate future isolation problems. Throughout the planning and execution of the program, the regulating agency was integrated into the decision-making process. To complete the abandonment, technologies such as casing drilling, downhole cameras, and magnetic ranging were employed along with directional-drilling, coiled-tubing, and fishing operations. Upon completion, the effectively executed abandonment program met or exceeded prescribed technical and regulatory requirements. The positive results of performing this operation included mitigating environmental impacts, delaying the capital-intensive construction of a future sour-gas-treatment plant, and allowing the extended operation of the Peace River complex (PRC).
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".