Utilization of Mud Weights in Excess of the Least Principal Stress to Stabilize Wellbores: Theory and Practical Examples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary In this paper, we address the theoretical possibility of drilling with mud weights in excess of the least principal stress for cases of particularly high pore pressure or severe wellbore instability. Because lost circulation caused by hydraulic fracturing is to be avoided, we consider three critical wellbore pressures, pfrac, plink, and pgrow. Tensile fractures initiate at the wellbore wall at pfrac, link up to form large axial fractures that are subparallel to the wellbore axis at plink, and propagate away from the wellbore at pgrow. It is obvious that lost circulation cannot occur if the wellbore pressure during drilling is below pfrac. However, even if pfrac is exceeded and tensile fractures are initiated at the wellbore wall, fracture propagation (and, hence, lost circulation) will be limited as long as the wellbore pressure is below plink. Finally, if the wellbore pressure is greater than plink, the fractures will not grow away from the wellbore (and significant lost circulation will not occur) if the wellbore pressure is below pgrow, which must exceed (if only slightly) the least principal stress. In general, our modeling shows that pfrac and plink can be maximized by drilling the wellbore in an optimally stable orientation, and pgrow can be maximized with noninvading drilling muds that prevent fluid pressure from reaching the fracture tip. We apply the model that uses in-situ stress data collected in real fields, such as the South Eugene Island field in the Gulf of Mexico and the Visund field in the northern North Sea.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".