Managed-Pressure Drilling and Downhole Isolation Technologies Deliver High Rate Gas Wells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Pressurized MudCap Drilling (PMCD), a variant of Managed Pressure Drilling (MPD), is known for allowing drilling to continue despite a total loss of circulation, while at the same time monitoring and controlling the entry of influx into the wellbore. A weakness of this technique is that the well still has to be killed prior to pulling out of the hole, which can be timeconsuming and ultimately lead to reservoir damage. Utilizing a downhole isolation system to eliminate the need to kill the well during and after PMCD operations would therefore greatly improve the efficiency and effectiveness of this drilling technique and enhance its acceptability in operations where well productivity is a major consideration. A combination of MPD and downhole isolation technologies was recently used successfully to drill a highly prolific, fractured gas reservoir in Suban Field, South Sumatra, Indonesia, resulting in wells capable of producing in excess of 300 mmscfd. MPD with downhole isolation allowed drilling to continue even with total loss of circulation, increased the safety margin of operations, reduced the amount of mud and lost circulation materials (LCM) required, minimized formation damage and made the running and installation of the completion assembly possible without the need to kill the well. The project demonstrated the clear and practical advantage that can be gained from combining these two technologies. This paper focuses on how MPD and downhole isolation technologies were successfully integrated to produce high-rate gas wells in the Suban field and details how the system was effectively utilized for the first time to produce improvements in the safety and efficiency of drilling and completion operations, as compared to previous methods used in the area. It will also present the equipment, set-up, processes and procedures used in integrating these two technologies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".