First Horizontal Deployment of Remedial Conformable Sand Control Technology in Colombia - Qualification and Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Remedial sand control is challenging as the solution must pass through restrictions in the upper completion then ideally conform to the inner diameter of the zone requiring sand control. This paper describes the qualification of a multi-layer, open cell matrix polymer (OCMP) solution for the first horizontal deployment in an offshore gas well. Initial sand retention testing was conducted using a specially designed apparatus that allowed the OCMP to be evaluated at different levels of compression using formation sand suspended in water. The next set of tests were then conducted using equipment capable of replicating field gas flow rate through the optimized OCMP to evaluate sand retention, plugging and erosion. In this case, a sand pack was generated using commercially available sands and clays matched to the formation sand particle size distribution to replicate near wellbore conditions. It was observed in the initial tests when applying 50% compression, that the OCMP was effective at retaining sand with minimal additional pressure with only 0.026lb/ft2 sand passing throughout the duration of the test. Similar results were seen in the second set of tests where there was zero sand production and no indication of plugging observed neither during the retention tests or after pressure cycling. Erosion of the outer OCMP layer was observed but was filled with sand preventing further erosion of the inner layer. Compatibility with common oilfield fluids including oil, brine, solvents, hydrochloric acid, and hydrofluoric acid was also conducted with no material degradation being experienced. It was concluded that the system was suitable for the application, and it is the intention to deploy the OCMP system on all 3 wells. This paper introduces, for the first time, an innovative solution capable of being deployed remedially through tight tubing restrictions while providing conformant sand control in a horizontal wellbore without the need for gravel packing making the solution particularly valuable for scenarios where surface space is limited.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".