Coiled Tubing Scale Removal of Iron Sulfide - A Case Study of the Kaybob field in Central Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Iron sulfide scale deposition occurs throughout the Kaybob South field in Central Alberta. The scale typically forms directly on the tubular walls and generally results in corrosion of the metal beneath the scale crystallites. Under normal conditions, iron sulfide is soluble in hydrochloric acid. However, in sour gas and condensate environments, an asphaltene binder forms over the crystallites to limit, if not completely eliminate, the efficiency of chemical removal treatments. In such cases, the scale can only be effectively removed by mechanical means. A number of different methods of scale removal have been attempted, with an inconsistent record of success. For example, on some wells HCl Blends (7%-22% HCl) with xylene have been successful on the first attempt, on other wells this mixture required several attempts, and in some cases this technique resulted in no success. Mechanical options to resolve the problem include a tubing replacement (with an average cost of $150K - $550K CDN depending on completion complexity) or a milling treatment. The milling process, using coiled tubing, a motor and a mill, is costly and carries an element of risk. Well workovers are completed as required in this area on a regular basis - typically one per year. This case study will define and present the Blaster scale removal system that has been developed to clean tubulars. The techniques have been continually improved and modified since their introduction in January 1998. Amoco Canada participated in the beta test of the system where several modifications to the process were made. Nineteen wells have been completed as part of the test program, the results of which has added valuable data to this case study. This paper will demonstrate that coiled tubing technology has provided an effective, efficient and economic method of scale removal.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 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".