Assessment of two thermally treated drill mud wastes for landfill containment applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Offshore oil and gas drilling operations generate significant amounts of drill mud waste, some of which is transported onshore for subsequent thermal treatment (i.e. via thermal remediation). This treatment process results in a mineral waste by-product (referred to as thermally treated drill mud waste; TTDMW). Bentonites are originally present in many of the drill mud products and it is hypothesized that TTDMW can be utilized in landfill containment applications (i.e. cover or base liner). The objective of this paper is to examine the feasibility of this application by performing various physical and chemical tests on two TTDMW samples. It is shown that the two TTDMW samples contained relatively small amounts of clay-sized minerals although hydraulic conductivity values are found to be less than 10(-8) m/s. Organic carbon contents of the samples were approximately 2%. Mineralogy characterization of the samples confirmed varying amounts of smectite, however, peak friction angles for a TTDMW sample was greater than 36 degrees. Chemical characterization of the TTDMW samples show potential leaching of barium and small amounts of other heavy metals. Discussion is provided in the paper on suggestions to assist in overcoming regulatory issues associated with utilization of TTDMW in landfill containment applications.
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 | 0.006 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".