Safely Improving Production Performance through Improved Sand Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Safely Improving Production Performance through Improved Sand Management F. Selfridge; F. Selfridge DNV Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar M. Munday; M. Munday DNV Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar O. Kvernvold; O. Kvernvold DNV Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar B. Gordon B. Gordon ConocoPhillips Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Paper presented at the SPE Offshore Europe Oil and Gas Exhibition and Conference, Aberdeen, United Kingdom, September 2003. Paper Number: SPE-83979-MS https://doi.org/10.2118/83979-MS Published: September 02 2003 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Get Permissions Search Site Citation Selfridge, F., Munday, M., Kvernvold, O., and B. Gordon. "Safely Improving Production Performance through Improved Sand Management." Paper presented at the SPE Offshore Europe Oil and Gas Exhibition and Conference, Aberdeen, United Kingdom, September 2003. doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/83979-MS Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentAll ProceedingsSociety of Petroleum Engineers (SPE)SPE Offshore Europe Conference and Exhibition Search Advanced Search AbstractMany operators implement a conservative approach to sand management implementing a "Zero Sand Production" or "Maximum Sand Free Rate" Criteria. This is due to the potentially severe consequences associated with sand production i.e. erosion, and the fact that existing standards and guidelines /1/ do not provide sufficient practical advice on how to manage erosion issues during operations. These criteria generally put restrictions on the production rate (and revenue) to reduce sand production and decrease the risk of erosion leading to a loss of containment. These restrictions are in many cases unnecessary.This paper describes the development of an alternative approach which improves the production and safety performance of fields that are capacity restrained due to sand problems. The development of the approach started with a project for Conoco 1996 - 2000 /2/ and was further refined on a pilot project for Statoil in 2001 /3/, where it received the Statoil prize for the most successful R&D project in 2001.From an erosion perspective the amount of sand produced is only one of many factors that must be managed; equally important factors are sand particle velocity, impact angle and material grading. By gaining a better understanding of the specific erosion characteristics of a field through: well sand risk ranking, identification of erosion critical components and detailed erosion assessment including 3D computer modeling; a more sophisticated erosion management strategy can be implemented identifying specific asset operational criteria, erosion monitoring and inspection requirements.Implementation of this erosion management approach has provided operators with enhanced production, reduced inspection and maintenance costs without compromising safety and environmental targets and increasing/enhancing business performance.IntroductionThe mid / late 1990's saw a significant increase in unplanned hydrocarbon releases for Conoco in one of their UK North Sea operations. The releases occurred on manned installations and unmanned satellite installations with significant business and safety impact. The root cause of all incidents was an increase of solids production leading to accelerated erosion, see figure 1 for typical damage. The implemented solution of a revised Solids Management Strategy, the Maximum Allowable Solids Rate approach, has led to increased production, reductions in operating costs and enhanced safety performance.ChallengesThe key challenges in the implementation of the revised strategy can be broadly summarised as follows:Resistance to ChangeOperations personnel had over a long period of time assumed that adoption of a 'solids free' production would minimise failures. In reality the measures adopted to achieve this aim led to an escalation in the number and severity of unplanned failures. A key challenge was education and confidence building amongst the workforce to achieve a 'sea change' in the mind set and an improved understanding of the key issues.Regulatory PressureThe failures focussed regulatory attention due to their hazardous nature and the implication this resulted from ineffective management. A key challenge was addressing this pressure which, with further incident, may have resulted in enforcement action with associated loss of revenue and reputation. Keywords: key challenge, choke valve, real time system, operation, information, drillstem/well testing, outlet spool, implementation, inspection, society of petroleum engineers Subjects: Well & Reservoir Surveillance and Monitoring, Formation Evaluation & Management, Information Management and Systems, Drillstem/well testing This content is only available via PDF. 2003. 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 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.006 |
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".