MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055095471 · doi:10.2118/100432-pa

Near-Surface External-Casing Corrosion in Alaska: Cause and Mitigation

2008· article· en· W2055095471 on OpenAlexaff
Jerald Dethlefs, Curtis Blount, John C. Bollinger

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Drilling & Completion · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDrilling and Well Engineering
Canadian institutionsConocoPhillips (Canada)
FundersConocoPhillips
KeywordsCasingCorrosionCementMaterials scienceAnnulus (botany)MetallurgyGeotechnical engineeringPetroleum engineeringGeologyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Recently, a number of external-casing failures on a group of relatively new wells in the Kuparuk field of Alaska prompted an investigation into the cause. The investigation determined that external surface-casing-corrosion failures had occurred near the top of the casing cement within the conductor. The surface-casing corrosion was found to be caused by repetitive events of surface water entering into the top of the annulus between the surface casing and the conductor above the primary cement top. Testing of water and cement samples taken from the field indicates that the addition of oxygenated water and chemical salts that leach from the cement creates a low-resistance electrolyte resulting in an extremely corrosive environment. The yearly replenishment of oxygenated water in this environment sets up an electrochemical cell that corrodes the surface casing. Elevated casing temperatures (≈125°F) accelerate the corrosion rates and increase the temperature gradient between the casing and the conductor, creating a thermogalvanic-corrosion cell. Although damaged surface casing has been repaired mechanically on numerous wells by excavation and installation of welded sleeve patches, accessing the damaged surface casing can be difficult. Inhibiting the corrosion mechanism is considered a more tenable solution. This paper will Provide an outline of the extent of shallow external-casing corrosion seen in the field. Detail the mechanisms for the external corrosion. Detail the mechanical-repair procedures used to return the wells to service. Discuss possible mitigation methods to inhibit corrosion on existing wells. Discuss the treatment chosen to stop the corrosion. Provide details of treatments used to inhibit further shallowcasing corrosion.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Drilling & CompletionSame topicDrilling and Well EngineeringFrench-language works237,207