Limited Access Ranging Solution – Mitigation of Significant Anti-Collision Issues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper explores four unique case studies where a novel limited-access ranging system was used in real world examples of well placement with close-proximity drilling applications. The case studies highlight enhanced recovery and reduced complexity for the overall well construction process. The method uses a gradient ranging system along with surface excitation to create an active magnetic field along the target wellbore to acquire a distance and direction measurement. This arrangement eliminates the need for the typical access-dependent ranging conveyance using coiled tubing or wireline systems. With this approach, several logistical and technical constraints are removed, making several unique solutions possible, such as ranging to abandoned wells and to wells with casing damage or other obstructions, and as well as high-temperature applications as no intervention is required to the target wellbore. The first case study used magnetic ranging to an abandoned wellbore in an approach similar to drilling a standard Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) injector well. The second study highlights an anti-collision scenario which required toe-to-heel ranging to an abandoned wellbore. The third used magnetic ranging as an anti-collision tool performing toe-to-heel ranging to a currently producing wellbore where completion tools were left in the hole. The fourth scenario used the technology to drill a parallel well where a casing and tubing obstruction limited the ability to run traditional ranging equipment. Through this paper, the authors will illustrate the benefits of this technology in their use in Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage drilling applications and expand on potential benefits of this technology in other close-proximity drilling applications for either paralleling or anti-collision purposes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".