Wellbore Stability analysis in UBD Wells of Iranian fields
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Drilling underbalanced is often used to prevent formation damage, avoid lost circulation, and increase rate of penetration. However, it is also risky and may lead to wellbore collapse due to lack of positive support provided by the hydrostratic wellbore fluid column. Hence, the application of underbalanced drilling (UBD) should be evaluated thoroughly through the use of in-situ stresses and rock mechanical properties to estimate under what hydraulic drilling conditions the wellbore is stable. This paper presents a mechanical wellbore stability analysis for two depleted Iranian fields, named herein as field A and B. Depleted Iranian fractured carbonate fields are suffering from severe wellbore stability problems and lost circulation during overbalanced drilling conditions. The application of UBD in these fields with a pressure less than formation pore pressure brought on new wellbore stability problems like risk of shear failure and collapse of borehole wall. Using good geomechanical model description matching field characteristics in conjunction with rock failure criteria in some cases may lead to a good prediction for avoiding wellbore stability problems and choosing the optimum mud weight window. By analyzing cores, log and triaxial rock mechanical data, an elastoplastic model combined with a finite-explicit code was used in the wellbore stability analysis to estimatimate an optimum Equivalent Circulating Density (ECD) for these fields. Compared to some actual field data it was observed that using an elastoplastic constitutive model would be sufficient to analyze mechanical wellbore stability in these fields.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".