MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400216560 · doi:10.1016/j.geoen.2024.213075

Reverse cementing: How can it work?

2024· article· en· W4400216560 on OpenAlex
Hans Joakim Skadsem, Ruizi Zhang, I.A. Frigaard

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoenergy Science and Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDrilling and Well Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNorges ForskningsrådUniversitetet i Stavanger
KeywordsCasingAnnulus (botany)MechanicsLost circulationDisplacement (psychology)Drilling fluidViscosityGeotechnical engineeringGeologyMaterials sciencePetroleum engineeringDrillingEngineeringMechanical engineeringPhysicsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Primary cementing of casing strings is a necessary well construction operation where the annulus behind the string is displaced to a cement slurry. Cementing by reverse-circulation involves injecting cementing fluids directly to the annulus from surface, which can reduce the circulation pressure exerted onto the open-hole section during placement. We study density-unstable reverse-circulation displacement flows involving non-Newtonian fluids in near-vertical, eccentric annuli and use a semi-analytical displacement model to assess whether the interface between displaced and displacing fluids will elongate (unsteady displacement), or remain compact as cementing fluids are pumped down the well (steady displacement). We use the displacement model to study how casing eccentricity and fluid viscosity hierarchy impact the displacement classification. We find that typical field values tend to associate with unsteady displacements, particularly in regions of poor casing centralization, and for displacements involving “traditional” drilling mud, spacer and cement slurry properties. Improving casing centralization, increasing the displacing fluid viscosity and reducing the fluid density difference all act to stabilize the displacement. Similarly, increasing the imposed flow rate can also reduce the rate at which the interface elongates by enhancing the viscous stresses during placement. We compare selected scenarios to displacement simulations performed with the 2-dimensional gap-averaged (2DGA) model, and find qualitative agreement between the 2DGA results and our displacement classification predictions. While our study shows that it is possible to make density-unstable reverse-circulation displacements steady, we note that the identified measures are likely to increase the circulation pressures, which may offset an important benefit of reverse-circulation cementing.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.263
Threshold uncertainty score0.782

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.168
Teacher spread0.161 · 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