MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1965571306 · doi:10.2118/07-05-tn2

Prevention of Refinery Tower Plugging by Residual Oil Gellant Chemicals in Crude: Pilot Plant Evaluation of Alternative Oil Gellants

2007· article· en· W1965571306 sur OpenAlexaff
Robert S. Taylor, P. Stemler, Alain Lemieux, Glen Fyten, A. Cheng

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Canadian Petroleum Technology · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueElectrohydrodynamics and Fluid Dynamics
Établissements canadiensPetro-Canada
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésRefineryPhosphonateDistillationChemistryPhosphatePhosphorusPulp and paper industryCrackingSteam distillationWaste managementEnvironmental scienceOrganic chemistryEngineering

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract An earlier paper(1) described refinery plugging caused by volatile phosphorus components originating from phosphate ester oil gellants. Also documented were two successful field trials of new phosphonate ester oil gellants that were shown to address this problem. A second associated paper(2) presented results of additional field testing of phosphonate ester gellants directed at the optimization of cost and performance. In addition to the phosphonate ester systems previously tested, a new modified phosphate ester system has become available. The modified phosphate ester also reduces volatile phosphorus according to ASTM D86 distillation testing. However, several questions require further investigation. One of these is the comparative ability of phosphonate and modified phosphate esters to control volatile phosphorus and related tower fouling under more representative conditions. The D86 distillation procedure used to evaluate volatile phosphorus To date has a 250 °C endpoint. The actual bottom temperature in the towers is approximately 340 °C. Also, fluids typically have 2 to 4 minutes residence time in the tower bottom. However, the pot temperature in the D86 distillation is not specified as part of the procedure and may exceed 340 °C in some instances, even given that the endpoint measured in the distillate is 250 °C. Based on observed smoking of the oil samples in some distillations, the oil in the distillation flask may be cracking. Consequently, results may be inaccurate and difficult to reproduce. In addition, esters may decompose at elevated temperatures through a hydrolysis mechanism if water is present. Steam is injected into the bottom of the towers, serving as a source of water. However, the D86 test methodology does not include the addition of an aqueous phase. Another continuing area of concern has been organic halide formation under distillation tower conditions. Although no organic halides were detected in the flowback of the two initial field trials reported in an earlier paper(1), further testing under more realistic conditions is required. It has been hypothesized that on the larger scale of an actual distillation tower, water hydrolysis may occur. This could result in localized areas of acidity and causticity. In the presence of acid at elevated temperatures, halogenation reactions could occur if halogen ions, such as chloride ions, are present. Any carryover of salts not removed in the de-salters, could serve as this source of halide ions. To address these questions in the most meaningful way possible, full-scale pilot plant testing was conducted over several days with flowback captured after actual fracturing treatments (see Figure 1). Fouling of distillation tower trays were measured, as well as fouling of the packing material. In addition, any changes in the operating parameters such as rate, temperature or pressure during each test were noted because these could also be indicative of fouling. Three full-scale pilot evaluations were conducted using actual flowback fluids from fracturing treatments conducted with three different oil gellants:Convention phosphate ester currently in use. The purpose of this test is to serve as a blank for comparison and for validation of test methods. We expect tower fouling with this product. If no fouling occurs, the test method is invalid.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,468
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,927

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0030,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,012
Tête enseignante GPT0,236
Écart entre enseignants0,224 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Canadian Petroleum TechnologyMême sujetElectrohydrodynamics and Fluid DynamicsTravaux en français237 207