Comparison of Direct-Wrap and Slip-On Wire Wrap Screens for Thermal Well Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) is an extensively used recovery method to produce bitumen and heavy oil from the Western Canadian oil sands. Due to the nature of these unconsolidated, heterogeneous formations, preventing sand production prevention is a concern for operators. Many different control devices are being used to prevent the production of sand, most of which consist of a controlled aperture or matrix as part of a production liner. Wire-wrap screen (WWS) liners have been used in conventional wells around the world for many years, but they are relatively new to thermal well applications. One area of uncertainty is the relative merits of direct-wrap and slip-on variants. Potential failure modes are identified and the relative performance of these two types of WWS is compared. The most likely damage mechanisms during well construction are different in cased-hole than in open-hole. In the former, dogleg severity plus compressive and torque loads in the base pipe are generally the limiting factor. In the latter, the major concern is concentrated contact loads between the WWS screen and the formation. During thermal operations, structural stability of common ported base pipe configurations is not a significant concern. Sand control and inflow performance depend on maintaining a consistent wrap wire aperture over wide-ranging formation stress, strain localization, and thermal load paths. In many cases the relevant design considerations are shared by the two WWS variants, but differences are identified and discussed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".