Cementing Considerations for Casing While Drilling: Case History
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Casing while drilling (CWD) is an emerging technology being introduced in different areas around the world This new configuration, where the casing is used as a drillstring, presents new challenges for primary casing cementing operations compared to the conventional cementing operations. A full understanding of the required changes of the cementing methodology from conventional drillpipe drilling operations can contribute to the success of any CWD campaign. CWD cementing differs from conventional cementing practices because it is impossible to use standard centralizers attached to the casing while drilling because of extended and faster casing rotation. When more than one bit is required to reach the next casing point, CWD requires full-bore casing access to pull and run bottomhole assemblies (BHA) through the casing. In these instances, conventional floating equipment cannot be used. Wireline logging is normally conducted in cased hole after the cementing job. The cement volumes are calculated with a cement excess factor instead of a caliper log. This paper describes the methodology developed to successfully cement surface, intermediate, and production casings in more than 125 wells in south Texas where CWD was used. These same techniques can be applied in CWD operations elsewhere.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".