MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2779311326 · doi:10.2118/0118-0065-jpt

Design and Surveillance Tools Help Lower Integrity Risks for High-Temperature Wells

2017· article· en· W2779311326 on OpenAlex
Adam Wilson

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
KeywordsCasingPetroleum engineeringEnvironmental scienceMechanical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article, written by Special Publications Editor Adam Wilson, contains highlights of paper SPE 184159, “Use of Technical Design and Surveillance Tools To Minimize Operating Integrity Risk in High-Temperature Wells,” by Mirko Zatka, SPE, Shell Canada Energy, prepared for the 2016 SPE International Heavy Oil Conference and Exhibition, Mangaf, Kuwait, 6–8 December. The paper has not been peer reviewed. Thermal-well operations come with significant additional complexity in regard to maintaining wellbore integrity and hydraulic isolation from other formations. This is because of the extreme loads that may be placed on the well casing and liners, caused by the wide set of operating temperatures and pressures the wellbores may experience. To ensure that the wellbores can fulfill their anticipated operating need safely, careful design of the casing, liners, connections, and cement during the project-development phase is an absolute requirement. Background Wells designed for heavy-oil thermal-recovery projects will be exposed to a potentially wide range of operating temperatures. These can exceed 340°C for the deepest heavy-oil-bearing formations and can be as low as 5°C during well workovers. Such a range of operating conditions will cause the casing to yield under compressive conditions, and most likely under tensile conditions also, as it undergoes thermal cycling from the heating and cooling requirements of well operations. A thermal cycle is defined here as the confined casing material being heated to the point that it yields and plastically deforms under a compressive load, followed at some later time by sufficient cooling to force it to yield and plastically deform under a tensile load. This is an operating requirement for which casing and liners are not normally designed in conventional applications but is frequently unavoidable in thermal operations. As a result, consideration of material properties of the tubulars requires a much deeper understanding of the chemistry, manufacturing, and heat-treating processes in order to select the optimal material. Similarly, casing connections play a key role in well integrity, based on their ability to withstand stress cycles in the casing or liner string. Casing-cement composition and placement procedures are also key design parameters because thermal cycling of the casing will expose the cement to very large stresses across the metal/cement bond and potentially can alter the cement properties themselves. In turn, the operating practices applied to wellbores and the operating envelopes used to determine safe limits become keys to long-term integrity and safety.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.301
Threshold uncertainty score0.578

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.227 · 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