The Future of Drilling-Grade Barite Weight Material - A Case for aSubstitute Specification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Future of Drilling-Grade Barite Weight Material—A Case for a Substitute Specification J. R. Bruton; J. R. Bruton M-I Swaco Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar J. Bacho; J. Bacho M-I Swaco Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar J. A. Newcaster J. A. Newcaster M-I Swaco Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, September 2006. Paper Number: SPE-103135-MS https://doi.org/10.2118/103135-MS Published: September 24 2006 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Get Permissions Search Site Citation Bruton, J. R., Bacho, J., and J. A. Newcaster. "The Future of Drilling-Grade Barite Weight Material—A Case for a Substitute Specification." Paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, September 2006. doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/103135-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 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition Search Advanced Search Abstract Drilling grade barite, the fundamental drilling fluids "weight material" for over 8 decades, remains the primary source of ore product to adjust drilling mud densities around the world. However, quality, economically viable, and attainable supplies of 4.2 specific gravity barite ore for oilfield use are rapidly depleting. This is particularly true in the North American market, where significant foreign imports of barite ore are required to meet high demands from deepwater, Central US, and Western Canada drilling regimes. Without significant worldwide investments to locate and produce material to meet current API 4.2 s.g. and contaminant specifications, it is unlikely that producers of drilling grade barite will be able to supply the industry with a low-cost product in just a few short years. A viable alternative for less critical drilling applications is to use 4.10 specific gravity ore that possesses all the quality specifications of the current material.Industry acceptance of this reduced specific gravity material, co-existing with the current standard, could extend barite supplies by 5 years, or more, with only modest investment. The intent of this paper is to share results from a strategy now being undertaken to introduce and demonstrate the viability of the substitute specification ore in US applications. Also presented are laboratory studies that show that use of the 4.10-s.g. substitute will have minimal impact on the performance of most drilling fluids. Keywords: drilling fluid chemistry, drilling fluid formulation, drilling grade barite, drilling fluid property, investment, initial yp, drilling fluid selection and formulation, Upstream Oil & Gas, concentration, drilling fluids and materials Subjects: Drilling Fluids and Materials, Drilling fluid selection and formulation (chemistry, properties) Copyright 2006, 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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".