Geomechanical Analysis and Decision Analysis for Mitigating Compaction Related Casing Damage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Geomechanical Analysis and Decision Analysis for Mitigating Compaction Related Casing Damage Michael S. Bruno Michael S. Bruno Terralog Technologies USA, Inc. Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, September 2001. Paper Number: SPE-71695-MS https://doi.org/10.2118/71695-MS Published: September 30 2001 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Get Permissions Search Site Citation Bruno, Michael S. "Geomechanical Analysis and Decision Analysis for Mitigating Compaction Related Casing Damage." Paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, September 2001. doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/71695-MS Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex Search nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All ContentAll ProceedingsSociety of Petroleum Engineers (SPE)SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition Search Advanced Search AbstractReservoir compaction and associated bedding plane slip and overburden shear has induced damage to hundreds of wells in oil and gas fields throughout the world. Critical casing damage mechanisms observed in a variety of structural settings include:overburden shear damage on localized horizontal planes;shearing at the top of production and injection intervals; andcompression and buckling damage within the production interval primarily around perforations.Analytical solutions are readily available to estimate compaction, subsidence, and casing damage risks. These should be applied as initial screening tools at an early stage in reservoir development planning. They can also be applied to estimate relative risks for various well locations and trajectories.Geomechanical models of increasing complexity, including two-dimensional and three dimensional finite element type techniques have been used with good success to assess formation deformation and casing damage risks in several reservoirs, and are described herein. Three dimensional geomechanical models at the wellbore scale are required to evaluate shearing deformation on specific well designs, and are used to assess damage mitigation effectiveness for varying completion strategies.An economic decision tree model is applied to compare the costs and benefits of alternative well designs, while taking into account inherent uncertainties in model input data, well damage location, and the effectiveness of various mitigation strategies. In some instances the appropriate action is not to change completion design and simply accept damage risk.IntroductionSignificant subsidence and casing damage have occurred at several fields throughout the world, including the North Sea, in the Gulf of Mexico, in California, Canada, South America, and Southeast Asia1–10. Problems can be particularly acute in deep offshore operations, where individual well costs often exceed 10million dollars and specific wells often target individual sand formations or fault blocks. Hence the loss of even one or two wells may significantly impact recoverable reserves for the field.Compaction related casing damage can include compression and buckling, localized shearing deformation, tension damage, and even distortion damage to internal completion assemblies such as pre-packed screens. The appropriate mitigation strategy will depend on the most likely location of casing damage, the expected type of damage, and the damage magnitude. This requires combining geomechanical analysis of deformations in the reservoir, overburden, and the casing-cement-formation assembly with quantitative decision analysis that compare the costs of various mitigation strategies to the economic benefit of reducing damage risk, given the inherent uncertainty and variability in reservoir deformation, damage type and location, and mitigation effectiveness.This paper describes casing damage observations worldwide and geomechanical analysis techniques applied to evaluate casing damage mitigation strategies. We further describe a quantitative decision analysis process to estimate the economic value of various completion designs to mitigate casing damage. Keywords: compression, decision analysis, mitigating compaction, damage risk, completion, geomechanical analysis, decision support system, effectiveness, reservoir geomechanics, compaction Subjects: Reservoir Characterization, Reservoir Fluid Dynamics, Reservoir geomechanics, Integration of geomechanics in models This content is only available via PDF. 2001. Society of Petroleum Engineers You can access this article if you purchase or spend a download.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".