Acid-Soluble Plugs—Pressure-Tight Solution for a Preperforated Liner
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary This paper covers the development, laboratory testing, and field testing of acid-soluble-plug (ASP) technology as a viable completion alternative to wireline- or tubing-conveyed perforating. The ASPs are installed in a preperforated reservoir liner and dissolve when soaked in acid, allowing access to the reservoir. This allows the technology to be easily applied in reservoirs in which matrix acid jobs or acid-fracturing techniques are used. The ASP technology was developed to reduce risk and cost associated with wireline- and tubing-conveyed perforating. ASPs were designed, manufactured, and field tested in both 5-in. and 7.625-in. reservoir liner sizes for wells in the Ekofisk field. The combination of laboratory testing and large-scale field testing influenced the design of the ASPs as well as the additives used in the acid systems used to dissolve them. From concept to initial field implementation, the process of ASP-engineering development took more than 2 years. The concept was in the beginning field-tested in deviated injectors, with ASPs installed in the deepest section of the reservoir liner. The field tests proved the ASP concept before depending on the technology in a horizontal producer with an uncemented, tubing-in-liner completion solution. The field tests showed that acid soaking dissolved the ASPs in the downhole environment and allowed efficient acid stimulation of the reservoir. It also reduced the number of wireline runs necessary to complete the well. When field tested in a tubing-in-liner completion application, installation of the ASPs in the reservoir liner eliminated tubing-conveyed-perforating runs. The reservoir liner was uncemented with mechanical openhole packers for zonal isolation. The ASPs provided a pressure-tight reservoir liner to set the packers against and eliminated fluid loss during the running of the inner completion string. Optimization of this technology is an ongoing process. The plug design itself continues to evolve as well as the operational steps to minimize the soaking time necessary to dissolve the plugs and to gain access to the reservoir.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".