Guidance for the Development and Implementation of an Effective Well Integrity Management System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The NORSOK D-010 standard established a definition of Well Integrity: “The application of technical, operational and organizational solutions to reduce the risk of uncontrolled release of formation fluids and well fluids throughout the life cycle of a well.” If that is the ultimate goal, how do we get there? This document was created with the goal to provide references, a basis of information, and guidance for best practices to operators for developing and implementing a Well Integrity Management System (WIMS). This paper will review the industry documents that address Well Integrity and outline their requirements or recommendations of a Well Integrity Management System (WIMS). This paper will address what elements should be covered in a WIMS. It will also expand on each of these elements in order to provide information and guidance for an operator to build a WIMS. This paper will cover the topic of best practices for successful implementation of a WIMS, from training, personnel buy-in, and auditing/tracking to verify the effectiveness of the program.
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 | 0.024 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.025 |
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".