MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3116348168 · doi:10.1115/omae2020-19344

Off-Bottom Plug Placement: How It Works?

2020· article· en· W3116348168 on OpenAlexaffabout
Abdallah Ghazal, Ida Karimfazli

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDrilling and Well Engineering
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpark plugSlurryCementPetroleum engineeringMixing (physics)Geotechnical engineeringDiffusionPlug flowEnvironmental scienceGeologyMechanicsMaterials scienceMechanical engineeringEngineeringEnvironmental engineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In Canada, the Alberta Energy Regulator’s (AER) liability report, issued in 2018, predicted that the number of inactive wells in the province will double by 2030. Despite the increase in the number of inactive wells, there is a need to close them properly to avoid hazards escape. Various aspects of well plug technologies in the Canadian abandoning industry are empirical. Many plugs are formed by injecting cement slurry into wells that are otherwise filled with fresh water for the slurry to build up on top of a water layer at a desired location. However, cement is heavier than water. Thus, successful plug placement following this methodology is questionable from the hydrodynamics perspective. The present study aims to identify features of successful processes for placement of off-bottom plugs. To that end, we investigate mixing of fluids of different densities as the denser fluid is injected into the lighter fluid. Cement slurry is modeled as a viscoplastic fluid. The fluid motion is governed by hydrodynamic models, and the two fluids (i.e. cement and water) are considered to be miscible and are allowed to mix. Systematic numerical simulations aim to reveal how the characteristics of cement and the well configuration affect the placement process. We show that successful plug placement depends on the formation of a mixed layer, of the wellbore fluid and cement slurry, below the injection site. We identify and provide representative cases of the processes promoting the formation of the mixed layer: high diffusion and growing instabilities.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.165 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDrilling and Well EngineeringFrench-language works237,207