MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387447167 · doi:10.2118/215136-ms

HPHT Perforation Testing With Cesium Formate and Oil-Based Kill-Pills for North Sea

2023· article· en· W4387447167 on OpenAlexaff
Yvi Le Guen, Arun Kumar, Price Jackson, J. McGregor, Bennie Grové, Gary F. Rogers

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDrilling and Well Engineering
Canadian institutionsBP (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerforationPetroleum engineeringDrilling fluidSurgeBrineGeologyCloggingOil wellLost circulationEnvironmental scienceMaterials scienceEngineeringDrillingComposite materialMechanical engineeringChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A fluid with loss-control capability (kill pill) is used as the completion fluid during perforating to seal the formation immediately after perforating to maintain well control. This saves the time required to displace completion brine and the cost of losing the expensive brine into the formation. However, perforating with the kill fluid in the wellbore presents a great challenge in minimizing formation damage (Chang, Kageson-Loe, et al. 2004). For wells requiring to be perforated with a static overbalance pressure (SOB) and subsequently shut in with the kill fluid in place (to maintain well control while retrieving the gun and installing the completions system), a properly designed dynamic underbalance pressure (DUB) should be used to surge all perforation skin damage (caused by perforation debris and grain crushing) out of the perforation tunnel and let the wellbore pressure recover back to overbalance rapidly. This sequence allows building of a thin yet effective kill-pill filter cake against the clean perforation tunnel wall (Chang, Mathisen, et al. 2005). Too little DUB could leave the perforations with significant perforation skin remaining, strongly impairing the productivity. Too much DUB has the potential to cause perforation cavities to collapse, which will also strongly impair the productivity. Further, some kill fluids, such as a heavy brine formulated with cesium formate (CsFo) are significantly more costly than other kill fluids, such as an oil-based mud (OBM). Therefore, optimizing the perforating design and choosing the proper kill fluid are crucial tasks to ensure good well productivity (Chang, Kageson-Loe, et al. 2004). This paper discusses how one North Sea operator conducted large-scale perforation and formation damage qualification testing of two perforating kill-pill candidates for use in completing HPHT wells located in the Central North Sea. Test program design, results, and implications are discussed. To the authors’ knowledge, novel information presented includes 16-hour shut-in leak-off responses, flow initiation differential pressure, and return cleanup flow data for kill-pills placed within real perforations (perforations created using a real explosive shaped charge), quantitative and qualitative descriptions (with photos) of resulting CsFo and OBM kill-pill external filter cakes, dye flow visualizations of production flow path into perforations having kill-pill filter cakes, and quantification of single-shot total perforation skin decomposed to effective crushed zone permeability and thickness.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Annual Technical Conference and ExhibitionSame topicDrilling and Well EngineeringFrench-language works237,207