2004–2014: A Decade of Drill Pipe Grades and Industry Standards Evolutions to Address Increasing H2S Challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) can interact with steel tubular, such as drill pipe,and through the unfavorable combination of different factors a crack can initiate in the material and propagate until catastrophic failure, even with stresses largely below the yield limit of the material. The combination of tubular failures due to Sulfide Stress Cracking and the rising HSE concerns when dealing with sour gas has led the industry to develop new grades of drill pipe with enhanced resistance to SSC. Material selection for drill pipe in a sour environment is significantly complex, mainly due to the absence of dedicated international standard. Nonetheless, at a regional level the "Industry Recommended Practices" Volume 1 has been published in 2004 in Canada. The standard was created to insist on people safety, and provide specification and guidelines to manufacturers on material properties, quality control, testing and inspection of drilling products intended to be used in critical sour wells. Sour Service Drill Pipe as defined in the IRP have been used for a decade in Canada, as well as in other regions and continents, along with a variety of other proprietary Sour Service grades of drill pipe and BHA. This paper proposes a review of different field cases in the Middle East and Asia, as well as an outlook of the different practices for material selection and qualification guidelines which have emerged since the past 10 years. More recently, with the increasing demand of domestic gas in different part of the world, some highly sour oil and gas reservoirs are being explored with H2S contents beyond what could have been imagined a decade ago. To explore, appraise and eventually develop such fields, most of the time combined with complex well profiles or deeper reservoirs, significant technical challenges need to be addressed regarding drill pipe integrity and operations safety. This paper proposes a non-exhaustive review of the newest emerging industry trends as far as international standard guidance, regional normative initiatives, and new steel developments.
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 | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".