MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2055301814 · doi:10.2118/119964-ms

A Novel Strategy for Reducing Well Cost in the Piceance Basin by Using ECD Measurements and Air Injection Through a Parasite Aerating String

2009· article· en· W2055301814 on OpenAlexaff
Zimuzor Okafor, Shannon Higgins, Goke Akinniranye, Tom Bratton, R. Avila, D. A. Boone

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis
Canadian institutionsConocoPhillips (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnnulus (botany)DrillingPetroleum engineeringDrilling fluidWell controlLost circulationCasingStructural basinFlexibility (engineering)GeologyEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceEngineeringMechanical engineeringMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Drilling on top of the Mesa in the Piceance Basin presents a significant loss circulation and stuck pipe challenge to operators wanting to exploit the huge gas reserves in the area. Operators have experienced losses that exceed 4000 barrels of mud when the intermediate section is drilled using conventional techniques. This is due to a combination of natural fractures and weak rock. Various strategies have been deployed to tackle the problems, including under-balance drilling operations and Direction Casing While Drilling (DcWD). A new technique described in this paper is now the best practice for ConocoPhillips in the area. It involves acquiring realtime circulating density (ECD) measurements and control of mud weight in the annulus, using direct air injection through a parasite aerating string (PAS). During the development stages of this new process an annular pressure sub (APWD) was run to gather diagnostic data. Analysis of the data shows conventional drilling practices often yield up to 3 ppg variation in circulating density exposed to the formation. Analysis of the data also suggests there is a fracture reopening gradient of approximately 8.3 ppg and there are huge circulating density variations during connections. The new strategy shows these wells can be drilled with an ECD in the range of 5–7 ppg using conventional water based mud systems. This strategy allows wells with a very narrow mud weight window to be drilled safely. This simple approach avoids the use of complex multiphase models, giving the flexibility to quickly deploy the technique to the well site without the need for expert personnel. The information enables the driller to control and keep the ECD within recommended limits, delivering a safe and productive well. The alternative approach of using conventional well design techniques would result in multiple casing strings and cost overruns, while more advanced techniques such as DcWD and under-balance drilling would require specialized equipment and crews. This new technique uses existing and common drilling technologies along with new software tools for geomechanics analysis and drilling surveillance to achieve excellent results. This paper presents a simple risk management technique using today's conventional technologies to successfully manage loss circulation risk in the Piceance basin.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis→French-language works237,207→