MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2915629417 · doi:10.2118/0110-0056-jpt

Technology Focus: Well Control (January 2010)

2010· article· en· W2915629417 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jerome Schubert

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Petroleum Technology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDrilling and Well Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChokeAnnulus (botany)Well controlCasingDrillingPetroleum engineeringWellboreLost circulationPressure controlGeologyDrilling fluidEngineeringComputer scienceMechanical engineeringMarine engineeringElectrical engineeringMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Technology Focus It has been stated many times that all the easy wells have been drilled. It would stand to reason then that only problem wells remain. Even though this last statement is not entirely correct, our industry is facing increasingly costly incidences of pressure-related nonproductive time. Problems include narrow pore-/fracture-pressure windows, wellbore stability, depleted formations, formation damage, and excessive casing strings, among others. The industry has responded by developing managed-pressure-drilling (MPD) technologies. The goal of MPD is precise management of the pressure in the entire annulus. In most instances, a rotating control head is used, diverting the mud returns through an adjustable choke. This closed system allows precise imposition of surface backpressure on the annulus and enables precise measurement of the mud-return rate. The use a rotating control device and choke in this way is very similar to a constant-bottomhole-pressure method of well control. In September 2009, the SPE Drilling & Completions Applied Technology Workshop on Well Control was held in Rio de Janeiro, during which several companies involved in MPD made presentations on how their MPD technologies have enhanced well control. The closed system, which precisely measures surface pressures and mud-return rates, enables the detection of kicks (sometimes with less than 1 bbl of influx). Then, the mud-return rate is slowed to the prekick rate long enough to stop the influx and the well is killed, all without shutting in the well. In some cases, when a very small influx is detected, it is not even necessary to stop drilling. The papers selected to be highlighted in this issue all detail unconventional well-control methods that have been used recently. On the basis of these papers and presentations at the Applied Technology Workshop, it appears that well control with MPD will quickly become “conventional.” Well Control additional reading available at OnePetro: www.onepetro.org IPTC 11970 • “Killing a Gas Well: Successful Implementation of Innovative Approaches in a Middle-Eastern Carbonate Field—A Field Case” by S. Salehi, University of Calgary, et al. SPE 121045 • “Prevention of Vertical Gas Flow in a Collapsed Well Using Silicate/Polymer/Urea Method” by Istvan Lakatos, SPE, Reseach Institute of Applied Earth Sciences, University of Miskolc, and Geoengineering Research Group, Hungarian Academy of Science, Miskolc, Hungary, et al.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.178
Threshold uncertainty score0.595

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0060.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1780.092

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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.174
Teacher spread0.171 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Petroleum TechnologySame topicDrilling and Well EngineeringFrench-language works237,207