Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Coiled tubing interventions on low-pressured horizontal wells can be challenging and are often considered high-risk operations due to the increased probability of lost circulation, which raises the chances of immobilization events. Pumping a commingled fluid (i.e., water with nitrogen) is one method of decreasing the hydrostatic head to achieve circulation. However, risks remain, such as encountering thief zones or large concentrations of sand, which can generate uncertainty surrounding potential high costs due to large volumes of nitrogen and lost circulation material. This study highlights the benefits that a foamed fluid system provides in these low-pressured environments and demonstrates that this cleanout method can be effectively utilized in horizontal wells. A combination of laboratory testing and field trials were conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of using a foamed fluid system when performing coiled tubing sand cleanouts in low-pressured horizontal wells. Foaming chemicals were tested and selected based on performance properties such as viscosity, foam quality, half-life, and sand settling rate. On-site quality control also provided testing of the foam being pumped and returned to the testers to ensure property targets were achieved to facilitate a successful cleanout. In partnership with a client, there were over a dozen horizontal well cleanouts executed over a one-year campaign. Foam fluid systems were utilized on all these cleanouts, with all cleanouts successfully removing the targeted sand blockage without any lost circulation events occurring. Observations from the field found clean equipment and an uncontaminated single-use freshwater fluid source allowed for the foam to be successfully pumped with the targeted performance properties. Effective management of returned foam required proper loadings of an anti-foamer to break down the foam at surface. In cases where condensate was encountered, the foam quality of the returns was found to be negatively impacted. Best practices for coiled tubing cleanouts continued to be followed while using foam, with wiper trips being performed whenever large sand bridges were encountered to assist with cleaning of the wellbore. While foam cleanouts are not a new technology, historically they have primarily been performed on vertical or slightly deviated wells. Literature in recent years covering coiled tubing cleanouts with foam in horizontal wells has been limited to modelling and theory, with minimal details pertaining to the real-world field results. This paper discusses the execution process and results of successfully performing foamed cleanouts in low-pressured horizontal wells.
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) | 0.002 | 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".