MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2730272995 · doi:10.2118/0617-0034-jpt

With New Rig Software, Automated Drilling is Easier To Embrace

2017· article· en· W2730272995 on OpenAlex
Trent Jacobs

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Petroleum Technology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDrilling and Well Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEngineeringDrillDrilling rigAutomationDrill pipeDrillingSoftwareScheduleProcess (computing)Mechanical engineeringMarine engineeringComputer scienceOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Last summer, while being moved from one well pad to the next, a rig in the Delaware Basin of Texas was updated with some new software. It took 11 hours to complete, and after the rig was powered back up, it went on to drill the vertical section of a horizontal well almost 3 days ahead of schedule. Aside from boasting an impressive stat line, that well represents an important milestone for National Oilwell Varco (NOV) because it is the first to be drilled using the company’s closed-loop automated drilling system in conjunction with a recently launched rig operating system, which the company technically refers to as a process automation system. NOV is telling customers that this technology not only lowers the cost of field development, but delivers higher quality and straighter wellbores through its consistent performance. That automated program in Texas has concluded, but the combined technology package is now being used to drill shale wells on four rigs in the US and one in Canada. There are 16 separate orders for the new process system. These contracts for NOV follow more than 5 years spent using the hardware kit, which includes wired-pipe and a weight-on-bit controller, to drill through more than 2.5 million ft of conventional and unconventional formations. Going forward, the oilfield technology developer is offering a more complete product: automation controlled by highly capable software. This integration means that the digitally connected surface and subsurface machines working on an automated rig now have a digital driller to take orders from. “Our mantra is that the rig of the future is here today—just add software,” remarked Tony Pink, the vice president of strategic sales at NOV. Pink has been involved in the automation initiative at NOV since its genesis and coauthored a recently published technical paper (SPE/IADC 184694) detailing the Texas project that it carried out with Calgary-based Precision Drilling and an unnamed oil and gas explorer. He described the tandem of NOV’s automated hardware and software as “a sophisticated autopilot for rigs” that takes many routine tasks out of the driller’s hands—literally. With the process system in control, drillers can lay off the joystick, stop pressing buttons, and also quit staring at screens in order to maintain their drilling direction.

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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.294
Threshold uncertainty score0.697

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.219
Teacher spread0.213 · 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