Sand control screen selection for cased dual‐annulus gas offshore wells based on scaled laboratory tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper assessed and ranked several alternatives to control sand production in a well recompletion effort of offshore gas wells that have experienced massive sanding. The aim was to select an appropriate thru‐liner sand control system to increase well productivity. Four different screen types were evaluated, including a wire‐wrapped screen (WWS), slotted liner (SL), punched screen (PS), and a new multi‐layer open cell matrix polymer (OCMP) filter resembling gravel‐pack. The performance of screens regarding sand production and plugging was evaluated using a sand retention testing facility featuring a custom‐made device that mimics the unique well completion configuration. Further, a novel testing setup was constructed to assess the erosion potential of screens subject to high‐velocity gas and sand flow. All assessments were conducted under the representative actual well conditions. Laboratory tests indicate the superior performance of the OCMP filter compared to the other three options. Even though SL, WWS, and PS performed similarly in sanding, the WWS posed a higher erosion risk, with PS following in second place. The plugging tendency of the WWS was the least among all the options, whereas the PS had the highest tendency. Despite this, the WWS's sanding performance is expected to decline due to its vulnerability to erosion. Overall, the testing results indicated that the OCMP filter provides a promising solution to the issue of sand production in the gas wells being evaluated. However, the interaction of the OCMP filter with potential treatment chemicals in the wells should be tested before it can be used.
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".