Providing Floating Capabilities in Latest-Generation Sand Screens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Industry interest is turning to alternative means of production for the massive reserves located in the Bitumen Region of Canada's Tar Sands. Currently, the region has over 100 installations of sand screens/slotted liners in both injection legs and production legs using Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) technology. Due to the sensitive nature of the environment, multiple wells must be drilled from a single pad. With the average depths of these wells between 200 and 400 m and lateral lengths between 800 and 1,000 m, a floating sand screen provides assurance that the sand screen will reach the desired depths. The most typical method of floating the sand screen to bottom uses paraffin to plug the flow access of the screen during installation. In shallow depth wells, the paraffin must be capable of handling differential pressure between the annulus and inside diameter of the screen or liner assembly equivalent to the hydrostatic pressure and any surge pressures encountered during the installation process. The use of paraffin to plug the sand screens currently limits the differential capability to less than 200 psi. A new technology has been developed that allows for sand screen installations without relying on paraffin wax to withstand differential pressure. This new technology uses a hydro-mechanical valving system incorporated into the screen design to temporarily close off the screen while being run in the hole. This paper will describe how this technology can provide a reliable, time-saving solution for SAGD installations when floating sand control screens in the hole is required. This solution provides a unique alternative to the methods currently being used to install sand screens with SAGD technology in the rapidly growing Canadian market for bitumen recovery.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".