MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386525022 · doi:10.56952/arma-2023-0359

Particle Size Optimization of Lost Circulation Materials: A Comprehensive Experimental Study

2023· article· en· W4386525022 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bingxie Li, Yongcun Feng, Chengyun Ma, S. H. Li, Chenxi Lai, Shuai Zhang, Feiyu Su

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDrilling and Well Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLost circulationBridging (networking)Underbalanced drillingDrilling fluidDrillingPetroleum engineeringCompletion (oil and gas wells)Materials scienceWellboreMechanical engineeringGeologyEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Severe lost circulation in fractured formations is one of the most common and challenging problems in oil and gas drilling engineering. The lack of theoretical guidance on the selection of lost circulation materials (LCMs) for millimeter-level fractures results in unstable fracture bridging, which is prone to repeat failure. In this paper, a comprehensive laboratory experimental study was conducted with modified PPA equipment for millimeter-level fractures. The effectiveness of the LCMs is evaluated by fluid loss amount, pressure-bearing capacity, and the LCMs bridge location and integrity. Experimental results show that a single LCM size distribution cannot effectively seal millimeter-level fractures, while an optimized combination of bridging and filling particles can achieve successful sealing. It is recommended that the mass ratio of bridging particles to filling particles be 2:1. The D50 and D90 of the bridging particles should be 35-40% and 70-80% of the fracture entrance width, respectively. The D90 of the supplementary flaky materials, e.g., mica, should be slightly less than the fracture entrance width. The results of this laboratory study can provide guidance for selecting LCM size for effective fracture sealing and improved wellbore strengthening performance. INTRODUCTION During the drilling process, lost circulation happens when a lot of drilling fluid leaks into the formation. Lost circulation can result in the drilling fluid's depletion and prolong the drilling cycle. Improper management of lost circulation may also lead to complex situations, such as wellbore instability, blowouts, and stuck pipes, ultimately resulting in catastrophic engineering accidents. The lost circulation rate is estimated to account for approximately 20% to 25% of the total number of drilled wells. The annual cost of well plugging can reach $4 billion USD. In North America (the United States and Canada), the percentage of drilled wells that experience severe lost circulation in carbonate oil and gas reservoirs, shale oil and gas reservoirs, and other formations amounts to about 40% of the total. In the Middle East, the wells that experience severe lost circulation during the drilling of carbonate-fractured oil reservoirs account for more than 30% of the total, with the time loss due to lost circulation exceeding 50%.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDrilling and Well EngineeringFrench-language works237,207