MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2180326441 · doi:10.2118/166142-ms

Environmental Risk Arising From Well Construction Failure: Difference Between Barrier and Well Failure, and Estimates of Failure Frequency Across Common Well Types, Locations and Well Age

2013· article· en· W2180326441 on OpenAlexaff
George E. King, Daniel King

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDrilling and Well Engineering
Canadian institutionsApache (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeakEnvironmental scienceContainment (computer programming)Lead (geology)GeologyGeotechnical engineeringPetroleum engineeringComputer scienceEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Do oil and gas wells leak to the environment? The great majority of wells do not pollute. The purpose of this paper is to explain basic concepts of well construction and illustrate differences between single barrier failure in multiple barrier well design and outright well integrity failure that could lead to pollution, using published investigations and reviews from data sets of over 600,000 wells worldwide. For US wells, while individual barrier failures (containment maintained and no pollution indicated) in a specific well group may range from very low to several percent (depending on geographical area, operator, era, well type and maintenance quality), actual well integrity failures are very rare. Well integrity failure is where all barriers fail and a leak is possible. True well integrity failure rates are two to three orders of magnitude lower than single barrier failure rates. When a series of barriers fail and a leak path is formed, gas is the most common fluid lost. Common leak points are failed gaskets or valves at the surface and are easily and quickly repaired. If the failure is subsurface, an outward leak is uncommon due to lower pressure gradient in the well than in outside formations. Subsurface leaks in oil wells are rare and are routinely exterior formation salt water leaking into the well towards the lower pressure in the well. Failure frequency numbers are estimated for wells in several specific sets of environmental conditions (location, geologic strata, produced fluid composition, soils, etc.). Accuracy of these numbers depends on a sufficient database of wells with documented failures, divided into: 1) barrier failures in a multiple barrier system that do not create pollution, and 2) well integrity failures that create a leak path, whether or not pollution is created. Estimated failure frequency is only for a specific set of wells operating under the same conditions with similar design and construction quality. Well age and era of construction are variables. There is absolutely no one-size-fits-all well failure frequency.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.205
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations57
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Annual Technical Conference and ExhibitionSame topicDrilling and Well EngineeringFrench-language works237,207