MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050752062 · doi:10.2118/77801-ms

ESP Design Changes for High GLR and High Sand Production; Apache Stag Project

2002· article· en· W2050752062 on OpenAlex
N. B. Muecke, G. H. Kappelhoff, Anne Marie Watson

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOil and Gas Production Techniques
Canadian institutionsApache (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetroleum engineeringProduction (economics)Oil productionCompletion (oil and gas wells)High pressureFossil fuelEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceGeologyEngineeringWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Initial ESP designs for the Stag oil field, located on the Australian Northwest Shelf, were based on a low GOR, high viscosity, 19 API, crude oil. However, higher than forecasted gas rates and gas-oil separation in the 3300 ft long horizontal production sections resulted in flow from the reservoir in the form of slugs of gas and oil. Then, with the onset of water production, high volumes of produced sand compounded the problems. These two main issues, plus a rapidly declining reservoir pressure, have combined to present a challenging ESP production environment. This paper reviews in detail the evolution of the completion design, focusing mainly on the ESP design, which initially ran for only 191 days, but now averages 511 days. The intent of this paper is to provide advice to be considered when designing ESP completions for new reservoirs, to provide an example of a good completion design for handling fluids with high ratios of gas and sand, and finally, to provide information on new technology developments that have evolved from these learning experiences.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.786

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.188 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it