MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2974737941 · doi:10.2118/195956-ms

Casing Connection Break Detection Through Tubing in Canadian Thermal Projects. Case Study.

2019· article· en· W2974737941 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mohsen Ghanavati, Maxim Volkov, Vener Nagimov, Hamzeh Ali Mohammadi

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsPetro-Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCasingCoaxialPetroleum engineeringOil wellSteam injectionCoiled tubingEngineeringCompletion (oil and gas wells)Mechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Production casings of Cyclic Steam Stimulation (CCS) or steam-assisted gravity drainage wells are exposed to significant temperature variations which in many cases resulted in casing breaks in the weakest part which are typically connection joints. The paper focuses on the new downhole logging approach, in monitoring and detecting production casing connection breaks through tubing without requirement for tubing retrieval. The metal well barriers can be assessed by utilizing electromagnetic (EM) pulse defectoscopy. This is done by running multiple coaxial sensors downhole in tandem. Each sensor generates EM pulse and then records EM decay from surrounding metal tubes. Modeling of recorded EM decay enables precise assessment of metal loss or metal gain in up to four concentric barriers. However, the tool had never been used previously to detect minor defect features as casing breaks through the tubing. To identify casing breaks several yard and field tests have been conducted and new methodologies were developed. The last one included the recognition of specific patterns of raw EM responses, analysis of hole sensors and utilization of data from all coaxial sensors utilized during the downhole survey. The new approach including downhole EM pulse tools and new data analysis have been implemented to detect casing connection breaks in over a hundred Cyclic Steam Stimulation (CCS) and SteamAssisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) wells. The paper demonstrates the testing of the application feasibility in a comprehensive yard test and extends to real field examples. All detected breaks were confirmed after tubing removal and were successfully repaired. Paper highlights detection challenges due to different casing connection break types: minor breaks, partial breaks (contrary to fully circumferential), and casing breaks aligned with tubing connections. The technology has helped Operators to fulfil the objectives of connection break detection without tubing removal through a non-intrusive, safe, quick and economical approach. Today, CSS and SAGD Operators should confirm casing integrity repeatedly prior to each subsequent steam cycle through the time and resource consuming approach of tubing removal and checking the casing integrity mechanically. Utilizing through tubing electromagnetic diagnostics, enables Operators to pick up multiple casing connection breaks in a single run without tubing retrieval.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.330
Threshold uncertainty score0.664

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Annual Technical Conference and ExhibitionSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207