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

Technology Focus: Well Control (January 2010)

2010· article· en· W2915629417 on OpenAlex
Jerome Schubert

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 · 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.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.534
Threshold uncertainty score0.913

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.002
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