MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970111151 · doi:10.4043/20436-ms

Un-planned Shut-in and Deepwater Gas Hydrate Prevention

2010· article· en· W1970111151 on OpenAlex
Shing-Ming Chen

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

VenueOffshore Technology Conference · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMethane Hydrates and Related Phenomena
Canadian institutionsHusky Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClathrate hydrateWellheadPetroleum engineeringHydrateNatural gas fieldShut downWell controlNatural gasGeologyEnvironmental scienceChemistryWaste managementMaterials scienceDrillingEngineeringProcess engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The main objectives of this paper are to (i) investigate key factors affecting gas hydrate formation and (ii) recommend methods for preventing gas hydrate in deepwater flowing and shut-in gas wells. In this paper, key factors affecting gas hydrate formation in deepwater gas wells are discussed. Critical times when gas and water may contact each other at temperatures below the gas hydrate temperature inside the tubing during flow and shut-in periods are examined. For flowing wells, since gas hydrate formation can easily be detected by monitoring the gas rate, pressure and temperature at the wellhead, gas hydrate prevention can be planned and implemented properly if there is a need. For shut-in wells, since there is no real time data available to determine if gas hydrate formation is taking place, preparations for gas hydrate prevention should be made available at all times, especially for wells which may encounter unplanned shut-ins during the operations. In order to assist in illustrating the need for gas hydrate prevention under different circumstances, examples using hypothetical data to represent different field or well cases are presented. Also included in this paper is an example which shows results from a gas hydrate study for a deepwater shadow gas well. Introduction Gas hydrate prevention is one of the big challenges[1-6] when developing a deepwater gas field or testing a deepwater gas well in a cold seabed environment. For a deepwater gas well, when gas flows at a high rate during normal operations, no gas hydrate will form because of the warm reservoir fluid flowing through the wellbore. However, during the well start-up, restart, shut-in, or when a well is flowing at low rate, gas hydrate may form due to the low wellbore temperature if both gas and water exist in the wellbore. As the formation of gas hydrate depends on wellbore conditions and fluids inside the wellbore, it is important to understand the wellbore fluid behavior and heat transfer among fluids and all mediums inside and outside the wellbore such that the possibilities for gas hydrate formation can be predicted and its prevention can be planned. Effect of Water on Gas Hydrate Formation As gas hydrate is mainly caused by the existence of water inside the wellbore, prior to discussing the gas hydrate formation, possible water sources which may contribute to water production while producing a gas well should be identified:Water from water zone:When a gas well is being produced, water may come directly from the perforated zone that contains water or indirectly from the water zone through channeling behind casing due to poor cement bonding.Condensed water from natural gas:Unless the produced gas from the reservoir is completely dry, it is inevitable that some water vapor in the natural gas will condense out when the reservoir gas flows through tubing with temperatures that have declined from their initial values.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.556
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.215
Teacher spread0.209 · 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