MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075732246 · doi:10.2523/iptc-15267-ms

Developing a Stage Tool for Cemented Back Monobore Completions with Open Hole Multi-Stage Systems in the Montney

2011· article· en· W2075732246 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kyle Kimmitt

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Petroleum Technology Conference · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDrilling and Well Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpark plugEngineeringCollarDrillCasingStage (stratigraphy)Petroleum engineeringCompletion (oil and gas wells)Mechanical engineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Challenges associated with cementing horizontal wellbores, as well as the higher operational time and costs associated with the cemented liner, plug and perf method, has resulted in many operators switching to open hole multi-stage system (OHMS) completions. In addition, production increases have been realized with OHMS due to access to the entire open hole lateral. To further optimize economics, cemented back monobore completions with OHMS are becoming the completion method of choice for operators. This is because they save on wellbore costs by eliminating the intermediate casing. Instead, the build section of the wellbore is cemented back to surface using a stage tool once the liner is installed. In addition, the cemented back method allows for OHMS systems to be run in on liner eliminating the need to trip out the running string and trip in the frac string. This paper outlines the operational procedure for cemented back monobore OHMS completions. Due to various issues with conventional plug-type cementing stage tools a new hydraulically activated, mechanically closed cementing stage collar was designed to open/close without the use of a plug/dart. The new stage tool addresses the operational issues encountered with conventional tools and further reduces costs by reducing rig time. With the new stage collar, there is no drill out of plugs and cement after the cementing operation, eliminating debris that could be problematic for the OHMS functioning. The development of the new stage collar through lab testing and field trials is discussed. This technology has been successfully used in various formations in Canada and the United States. This paper presents case study examples of installations in the Montney formation. Introduction Geology of the Montney. The Montney formation covers an area of approximately 246,000 km2 (95,000 sq. mi.) stretching across Alberta and British Columbia (Figure 1). It is a leading example of an unconventional gas play in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin containing vast quantities of proven gas reserves. Estimates of gas in place are up to 700 Tcf. The Montney consists of four distinct intervals: the Upper, Middle, Middle Lower and Lower (National Energy Board, Canada). Characterized by its low permeability (0.01 - 0.5 mD) and thick stack, the Montney is a prime candidate for horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing techniques. The formation is a blend of sandstone, siltstone and shale intervals with porosity up to 8% and true vertical depth to 3,950 m (13,000 ft).

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)0.001
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Petroleum Technology ConferenceSame topicDrilling and Well EngineeringFrench-language works237,207