PDC Bits and Rotary Steerable Tools - Functional Challenges, Stabilization Requirements and the Establishment of Operational Compatibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PDC Bits and Rotary Steerable Tools - Functional Challenges, Stabilization Requirements and the Establishment of Operational Compatibility Graham Mensa-Wilmot; Graham Mensa-Wilmot GeoDiamond Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Brian Stacey Brian Stacey Petro-Canada Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Paper presented at the SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology Conference, Bahrain, October 2001. Paper Number: SPE-72280-MS https://doi.org/10.2118/72280-MS Published: October 22 2001 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Get Permissions Search Site Citation Mensa-Wilmot, Graham, and Brian Stacey. "PDC Bits and Rotary Steerable Tools - Functional Challenges, Stabilization Requirements and the Establishment of Operational Compatibility." Paper presented at the SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology Conference, Bahrain, October 2001. doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/72280-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/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition Search Advanced Search Abstract The introduction of rotary steerable tools1,2 (RST) has drastically changed how the drilling industry plans and executes directional drilling projects. These tools address most of the technical and operational limitations, which previously hindered directional drilling efficiency. With RSTs, changes to wellbore trajectory are made while the drill string is in continuous rotation. This advantage improves wellbore quality, hole cleaning and Rate of Penetration (ROP). It also reduces well bore tortuosity, torque and drag, and eliminates the harmful effects of "negative weight on bit", especially on extended reach3 (ERD) programs.The benefits listed above can only be achieved if RSTs are used with appropriate bits4,5,6 . The development and/or selection of the "right bit type" for an RST application is "not as simple as perceived". This is due to the numerous technical issues - functional challenges, stabilization requirements and operational compatibility - that have to be addressed. To achieve technical and economic success, bits used with RSTs must also address expected formation drillability issues7 , in terms of their ROP and durability.PDC bits exhibit most of the characteristics needed to establish efficient partnerships with RSTs, especially their structural reliability and ROP potential. These attributes are further enhanced by the "absence of slide mode drilling", due to the continuous rotation of the drill string.This paper will characterize the technical issues associated with the PDC/RST combination, and show how "appropriate PDC bits" address them. It will draw distinctions between bit aggressiveness (BA) and bit instability (BI), and demonstrate how these parameters are affected by well profile specificity and dog-leg (DLS) requirements. In addition, it will identify and evaluate the requirements needed to ensure operational effectiveness on PDC/RST operations. Several field examples will also be discussed. Keywords: requirement, torsional vibration, vibration, operational compatibility, bit selection, drilling equipment, application, rst, rss operation, iadc spe 72280 Subjects: Drill Bits, Drilling Operations, Drilling Equipment, Directional drilling, Directional drilling systems and equipment Copyright 2001, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference 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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 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".