Revised Big Bore Well Design Recovers Original Bayu-Undan Production Targets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Bayu-Undan gas recycling project is located north of Australia, in the East Timor Sea and is designed to produce 1,100 MMscf/D of wet gas, strip out 110,000 B/D of condensate/LPG, initially reinject 950 MMscf/D of lean gas, and later export up to 700 MMscf/D of lean gas to a LNG plant in Darwin. The initial development called for 16 North Sea-style, 7 in. monobore wells (11 producers and 5 gas injectors). By May of 2003, it became apparent that the original well design would not achieve the 1.1 Bcf/D production target because of well construction problems. Three wells on the remotely located wellhead platform were abandoned because of wellbore instability. Without the production contribution from these wells, the first year's production target would not be met. To meet the production targets, a complete well redesign was undertaken. First, the tubing was upsized from 7 in. to 9-5/8 in. Then semi-openhole completions with pre-drilled liners and openhole packers were selected instead of the conventional cased and perforated design to reduce installation time. Finally, oil based drill-in fluid was selected to provide lubricity, temperature stability, and low liftoff pressure of the filter cake for rapid cleanup. Utilizing the Big Bore design, the production capacity of +1.1 Bcf/D and injection capacity of 1.1 Bcf/D was achieved in June of 2004, ahead of schedule. The well count was also reduced from 16 to 12 wells (8 producers and 4 gas injectors.) Two producers had capacities in excess of 300 MMscf/D, and three gas injectors had injection capacities in excess of 350 MMscf/D. The increased production resulted in 19 MMstb of condensate/LPGs produced in the first year, some 7-8 MMstb more than would otherwise have been the case.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".