Investigation of Severe Tubing Corrosion in a Shale Gas Observation Well
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Horn River shale gas play has been estimated at 500 TCF. Multiple large slickwater fracture stimulations are applied to horizontal wells to initiate gas production. A typical Nexen Dilly Creek shale gas well pad has 16 to 20 horizontal wells drilled parallel to the principal insitu stress. The horizontal legs are spaced approximately 300 m apart. A typical well receives 16 to 25 fracture stimulations spaced at 100 m intervals along the horizontal lateral. A slant drilled observation well (Dilly Creek c-F1-J) was drilled and completed and between two stimulated wells. The drilling of the well was concluded in early November, 2013. A string of 2-3/8″ tubing was installed and the well was suspended until July 2014 when wells on the pad were fracture stimulated. During the suspension period a gas head from the formation developed. First indication of a well problem occurred during attempts to land data recorders in the tubing in June 2014, seven months after the well was suspended. Tubing joints were recovered, the deposits were analyzed and a casing inspection log was conducted. Lab tests were then conducted on several recovered tubing joints. Drilling, completions and suspension procedures were reviewed and analyzed. It was concluded that the untreated oxygen in the suspension fluid in combination with the 10% CO2 formation gas caused the severe tubing corrosion.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".