MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4246172760 · doi:10.2523/59750-ms

Importance of Completion Design Considerations for Complex, Hostile, and HPHT Wells in Frontier Areas

2000· article· en· W4246172760 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
D.E. Hahn, R.M. Pearson, S.H. Hancock

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDrilling and Well Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompletion (oil and gas wells)Stress (linguistics)FoothillsGeologyLead (geology)Petroleum engineeringWorkoverHigh pressureGeotechnical engineeringEngineeringEngineering physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As upstream oil and gas exploration and production companies search for new opportunities, much deeper wells are being drilled and completed. In addition to greater depths, an increasing number of wells are being drilled and completed in much more hostile downhole environments. These very complex wells are frequently drilled in frontier areas around the world, including the Western and Northern Canadian foothills and coastal areas. Where pressures exceed 10,000 psi (69 MPa) and temperatures surpass 300°F (149°C), wells are generally termed High-Pressure/High-Temperature (HPHT) completions.The stresses resulting from the combination of high axial loads and pressure differentials begin encroaching on materials limitations of standard subsurface equipment. This paper provides an overview of an engineering design methodology that can be used during the planning of deep, difficult, or complex wells. The importance of numerous design considerations and realistic, clearly defined load cases will be emphasized.High temperatures cause the well to operate with either significant pipe movement, or high compressional loads at the packer, particularly when these high temperatures are combined with higher operating pressures. The increased well depths, usually with accompanying deviations from vertical, also increase mechanical and fluid friction. These situations require a rigorous engineering analysis with the aid of modern thermal and stress analysis software.Traditional uniaxial and biaxial working stress designs are convenient and usually adequate for shallower, lower temperature/pressure wells. However, the severe conditions considered within this paper require state-of-the-art triaxial design software. Examples within the paper will demonstrate how the results of these simulations can be used for hostile environment tubular selection, including discussion of the importance to properly select and test the tubular connections.Many failures have resulted from brittle fracture or fatigue rather than yield, because the tendency for the designer is to choose higher yield strength materials that are inherently less ductile and more prone to hydrogen embrittlement. To avoid this, it is better to push the limits of lower strength, ductile materials, which in turn challenges the typical design safety factors. This challenge has lead some major oil companies to develop and use risk based tubular design processes.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDrilling and Well EngineeringFrench-language works237,207