A Passive Flow Control Nozzle for Water Choking Application
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Reducing water production is the primary problem in the oil and gas industry. There are a few flow control technologies with moving parts available on the market to choke back water. However, the main issue with those technologies is the potential of plugging and scaling. In this paper, we will introduce a novel passive flow control nozzle, which has no moving part inside. All the choking is implemented through its internal geometry. Therefore, the risk of plugging and scaling will be significantly mitigated. In this paper, a passive flow control nozzle designed specifically for water choking will be presented. Design philosophy in fluid mechanics will be introduced in detail. The results of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) and physical flow loop testing will be shown to evaluate the performance of the technology. It is shown that a passive choking nozzle can choke back more than 40% of water compared to an orifice while maintaining oil production rates. We will also perform simulation case studies to compare conventional slotted liner completions with the completions equipped with a passive choking nozzle (PCN). We will show that the nozzle can effectively choke back water and promote oil production in a long horizontal well. Finally, we will briefly discuss how the passive nozzle can mitigate well-known issues such as scaling and plugging.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".