Optimized Foam Drilling Improves Drilling Performance in Iranian Carbonate Fields
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The advantages of foam drilling over conventional mud drilling have long been recognized and include faster penetration rates, longer bit life, prevention of lost circulation and less formation damage to the producing reservoir resulting in overall drilling cost reduction and higher production rates. Careful practical design and control of gas and liquid volumes, injection pressure and annular backpressure must be applied in foam drilling to achieve the optimum results. Optimization of foam drilling is done by drilling with the lowest acceptable bottom hole pressure and making sure that the wellbore is kept clean. This is done by applying an integrated flow model that accounts for both the compressibility of the foam, the hydrostatic column and the frictional pressure losses in conjunction with minimum hole cleaning requirements. The model is integrated with the hole cleaning requirements to obtain the balanced and lowest bottom hole pressure for the operation. The equations, procedure and sample application of this method are presented herein. Using this UBD approach on Iranian oil fields indicates large cost savings. The drilling operations in the Shanoul and Parsi fields shows as much as 60-70 percent reduction in bottom drilling time using foam drilling compared to conventional mud drilling. Using the optimum volumetric model for foam drilling and a series of simplified hole cleaning charts presented herein, the foam drilling program for the Shanoul field enabled determination of optimum drilling and hole cleaning parameters in this field. This paper presents results from programming of near balanced conditions using a new foam drilling program designed for the Shanoul field. The target formations were hard, fractured and depleted limestone formations with low pressure. The paper also compares the results to similar wells drilled with aerated fluids and conventional muds, which indicates the foam drilling as being superior in terms of rate of penetration longer bit life and less wellbore instability. A drilling cost study comparing conventional, aerated and foam drilling is also presented.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".