Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rock deformation and fracturing is an important causal mechanism that can compromise well integrity. Geomechanical simulation is a valuable tool to investigate this mechanism and connect well tubular designs with reservoir development strategies. Utilizing relevant field examples, this paper describes a work flow in these regards. Two example simulation approaches are described. One is to use a composite casing/cement/rock model in a reservoir of complex geology to compute maximum strain, dogleg severity, and ovality/restriction in the casing along the well trajectory. Different well design parameters, such as casing size, grade, and cement thickness, can be iterated against different reservoir production strategies. All these efforts are to arrive at an optimized design. The other approach is to calculate localized shear displacement along a weak plane that will be imposed on well tubulars during reservoir activities. The resulting design is optimized by altering well placement and stimulation/production schedules. The above workflow has been proven in various field applications. Experience is shared in this paper. It is hoped this work can demonstrate that the optimal management of well integrity can be achieved by an integrated approach that designs appropriate tubulars and adjusts reservoir activities. Placing well tubulars in the context of rock deformation, geomechanical simulation is the best tool to connect the reservoir activities with the well tubular designs and therefore, can potentially offer a cost-effective well integrity management program.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".