MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416086408 · doi:10.2118/228568-ms

Usage of a Coiled Tubing PWC Tool to Abandon Two Wells with Surface Casing Vent Flow on Onshore Australia

2025· article· W4416086408 on OpenAlexaff
Marcelo Anunciação Jaculli, E. Engelsgjerd, Patrick Andersen, Markus Iuell, I.C. Holm, Stuart Butcher, Dayln Beazer, Janet Mignano, James Ashton

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicDrilling and Well Engineering
Canadian institutionsAlberta Energy
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCasingCoiled tubingAquiferWorkoverCementLead (geology)Oil wellInjection well

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The increase in plugging and abandonment (P&A) activities requires innovative solutions that can reduce costs, enhance operational efficiency, and reduce emissions while ensuring that Operators comply with local regulations, maintain environmental responsibility, and achieve P&A objectives. One solution is the introduction of a coiled tubing perf-wash-cement (PWC) tool, which can install cross-sectional cement barriers without rigs. In this paper, we present the basis of PWC via a case study of two wells decommissioned in Australia. The installation of the cross-sectional cement barriers was part of a 20-week P&A campaign to decommission two wells in the Bowen/Surat Basins, onshore Australia. Through zone selection in the P&A design, the objective was to improve cement barrier placement over a 60m interval behind production casing and remediate a surface casing vent flow (SCVF) problem while managing the effective isolation of multiple aquifer units. The solution needed to provide long-term well integrity while overcoming these complex conditions. Another challenge was that the operator could not establish circulation for a traditional perf & squeeze at the desired depths. Considering the location, tool availability, cost targets, and technical challenges, a decision was made to attempt a coiled tubing PWC operation. The tool was deployed successfully in September 2024, placing two cement plugs in each well, four plugs in total. Despite the complexity of the operation, all four plugs were installed within a three-week interval, which contributed to reducing the project timeline, with three out of four plugs each taking only 11 hours to complete. All four plugs were confirmed through tagging and pressure testing, in line with the Code of Practice (CoP), ensuring a good quality barrier was placed between the formation and the casing, capable of remediating any potential leak pathways. The combination of testing and the correct job execution – following the operational parameters set during job design and used previously in other similar PWC operations - was sufficient to successfully execute the four jobs, and to meet compliance with the QLD regulations and the CoP. Later monitoring, which consisted of monthly inspection during 6 months, confirmed that the observed issues of SCVF and SCP were remediated post-job. It can be concluded that the operation was successfully deployed using the coiled tubing PWC tool, achieving all the targets, which included operational efficiency that was set by the operator during the P&A design. This case study highlights the PWC flexibility as a method for annular remediation during plugging and abandonment in combination with coiled tubing and a mechanical perforator. This allowed for safe, environmentally responsible, and cost-effective P&A operations, remediating well integrity issues by permanently sealing potential leak pathways using cement. Such technology has many other well candidates in Australia (and worldwide) that could benefit from the flexibility provided by coiled tubing PWC, saving costs and reducing emissions.

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 score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.182

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDrilling and Well EngineeringFrench-language works237,207