二级井控的核心就是要做好溢流的早期发现，及时准确地关井，正确地实施压井作业。

溢流量的大小是井控作业能否成功的关键。

软关井的关井时间长，但它防止了“水击效应”作用于井口。

硬关井，指一旦发现溢流或井涌，立即关防喷器的操作程序。

含硫化氢油气井，如果井口设备和井身结构具备条件，可以考虑使用硬关井。

反循环压井法就是在保持井底常压（大于储层压力）的条件下，采用反循环方式进行排污和压井，达到恢复和重建井内压力平衡的目的的压井方法。

司钻法压井属于正循环压井。

工程师压井从关井到恢复循环的时间长。

压回法不是排出溢流，而是将溢流压回储层，再采用其他操作。

在作业现场中不能依靠嗅觉是否闻到硫化氢的气味来判断有没有硫化氢的存在。

硫化氢气体可溶于水、乙醇、石油溶剂和原油中。

氢硫酸比硫化氢气体具有更强的还原性，易被空气氧化而析出单质硫，使溶液变混浊。

用ppm（即百万分之一）表示硫化氢的浓度，为体积比。意思是一百万体积的空气中含有一体积的硫化氢气体。

硫化氢分压是指在相同温度下，一定体积天然气中所含硫化氢单独占有该体积时所具有的压力。

含硫化氢天然气---油系统是否属于酸性天然气---油系统按有关条件划分。

非金属材料制作的密封件，它们在H2S环境中使用一定时间后，橡胶会产生鼓泡胀大、失去弹性；浸油石墨、石棉绳上的油被溶解等而导致密封件的失效。

氢脆破坏往往造成井下管柱的突然断落、地面管汇和仪表的爆破、井口装置的破坏，甚至发生严重的井喷失控或着火事故。

硫化氢对金属的腐蚀形式有电化学失重腐蚀、氢脆和硫化物应力腐蚀开裂，其中以后两者为主，一般统称为氢脆破坏。

硫化氢中毒严重者，会出现头痛，四肢发抖，僵硬，甚至失去平衡,极度虚弱、虚脱，小便呈淡绿色，导致失去知觉，心律失常，最后出血死亡。

硫化氢中毒后可能会出现下面一些表现特征:视线模糊、有光圈感；眼睛灼痛、流泪、红肿发炎、怕光；呼吸困难、流涎、呼吸道粘液多，呼出的气体有硫化氢味、咳嗽、胸闷、胸痛。

吸入低浓度的硫化氢可能会造成以下一些症状：疲劳、眼痛、头晕、兴奋、恶心和肠胃反应、咳嗽、昏睡等。

硫化氢主要是对水基钻井液有较大的污染，会使钻井液密度下降、PH值下降、粘度上升，以至形成流不动的冻胶，颜色变为瓦灰色、墨色或墨绿色。

通过提高泥浆的pH值即提高泥浆的碱性，使其与硫化氢产生中和反应，抑制并降低硫化氢与铁发生化学及电化学反应的能力，氢脆的破坏性随之减小。

加入适量除硫剂，使其和硫离子发生化学反应，将钻井液中的可溶性硫化物等转化为一种稳定的、不与钢材其反应的惰性物质，从而降低钻具的腐蚀。

由于硫化氢风险具有突发性、隐蔽性的特点，在工程实践中必须采用合理的规避措施。目前的常规手段是提高泥浆密度、提高泥浆的pH值、使用高效除硫剂、减少侵泡时间、分离燃排。

解决硫化氢的问题可以通过提高泥浆密度，压死硫化氢气层来实现。但在目的层由于存在保护油气层、井筒漏失等问题，提高泥浆密度会受到一定限制。

在钻遇含硫地层时，天然气不能直接排放到大气中，且回收成本又很高，通常采用分离器把天然气从钻井液中分离后进行燃排。

硫化氢检测仪器按功能分类有气体检测仪、气体报警仪和气体检测报警仪。

硫化氢检测仪器种类很多：按检测原理分类有电化学型、半导体型等。

现场广泛使用的电子式硫化氢监测仪可分为固定式和便携式两种。

现场还常用机械式检测管或泵吸检测仪来检测硫化氢泄漏浓度。特别适用于高浓度硫化氢泄漏以及超过在用电子式硫化氢监测仪超量程检测的情况。

(895、硫化氢监测仪使用过程中要定期校验。

特别要求第三级报警信号应与第二级报警信号有明显区别，警示立即组织现场人员撤离。

固定式硫化氢监测仪用于监测井场中硫化氢容易泄漏和积聚场所的硫化氢浓度值,探头数可以根据现场气样测定点的数量来确定。

在硫化氢（或二氧化硫）浓度较高或浓度不清的环境中作业，应该使用带全面罩的正压式呼吸保护设备，为人们提供一个安全可靠的呼吸保护。

正压式空气呼吸器属自给式开路循环呼吸器，它是使用压缩空气为供气流的呼吸器，它依靠使用者背负的气瓶供给所呼吸的气体。

用正压式空气呼吸器呼气时，需求阀关闭，呼气阀打开。在一个呼吸循环过程中，面罩上的呼气阀和口鼻上的吸气阀都为单方向开启，所以整个气流是沿着一个方向构成一个完整的呼吸循环过程。

正压式空气呼吸器虽然能保障大家的安全，但要是使用不当的话也可能对使用者带来人身伤害，使用者在使用前应接受正确使用的指导和培训。

正压式空气呼吸器使用前具体检查内容有以下四方面：整体外观检查；测试气瓶的气体压力；连接管路的密封性测试；报警器的灵敏度测试。

正压式空气呼吸器的主要由压缩空气瓶、背板、面罩、一些必要的配件（如高压减压阀、供气阀、夜光压力表）等组成。

循环论的错误在于___

对立统一规律揭示了___

唯物辩证法的实质和核心是___

辩证法所说的矛盾是指___

矛盾的基本属性是___

依据是___

矛盾问题的精髓是___

题的方法都是___

“任何个别（无论怎样）都是一般”。这句话的正确含义是___

在唯物辩证法看来，水果同苹果、梨、香蕉、桔子等的关系是___

“是就是是，不是就是不是，除此之外都是鬼话。”这是一种___

真象和假象的区别在于___

有的哲学家说，在大风扬起的尘土中，每一粒尘土的运动状况都是纯粹必然的。这是种___

“或然率”是指___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What does the author think of the 2015 report by the Census Bureau?___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What does the author say about the Jones-Klenow method?___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What do Jones and Klenow think of the comparison between France and the U.S. in terms of real consumption per person?___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What is an advantage of the Jones-Klenow method?___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What can we infer from the passage about American people’s economic well-being?___

大学生的成才目标是___。

现代人才素质的灵魂是___。

___是人才素质的基础.

世界政治格局发展的必然趋势是___。

在全面发展的教育中德、智、体、美是缺一不可，统一存在的，其中处于主导地位的是___。

时代精神的内涵十分丰富，其中___居于核心地位。

民族精神是一个民族赖以生存和发展的精神支撑。中华民族在五千年的发展中所形成的伟大民族精神的核心是___。

下列名言反映中华民族是一个艰苦奋斗的民族的有___。

___是人才素质的基本内容

10。___是我们立党立国的根本指导思想

衡量大学生全面发展的一个重要标准是___

独立生活意识指___

___作为社会主义核心价值体系的精髓，解决的是应当具备什么样的精神状态和精神风貌的问题。

___是人才素质的综合体现.

人们对生活在其中的世界及人与世界的关系的总的看法和根本观点就是___

人生观的核心是___

人的本质属性是___

社会主义社会人生价值标准是___

回答人为什么活着___

表明人应当怎样对待生活___

判别什么样的人生才有意义___