Inorganic Scale Control Within MEG/Methanol-Treated Produced Fluids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The control of inorganic scale (carbonate/sulphate) has been a challenge to the production of hydrocarbon and associated water for over 50 years. The current trend in the industry to develop satellite fields with longer tie backs and in deeper water has resulted in new challenges to control such scale deposits during hydrocarbon production. The lower fluid temperatures that are present in these subsea developments during fluid production increases the sulphate scaling tendency and makes scale control very difficult over the long residence time now experienced due to the tie back lengths. The introduction of methanol, mono ethylene glycol (MEG) or tri ethylene glycol (TEG) to control hydrate risk presents new challenges in terms of increased scale tendency (dehydration of brine) and interactions of the hydrate control chemicals with scale inhibitor performance. For these challenging environments a full understanding of the evolution of the brine chemistry through the field life cycle is essential (types of scale, supersaturation changes). This paper will outline the process by which this risk assessment of scale formation in the presence of hydrate control chemicals is made and how the scale control measures for effective scale management of subsea developments is carried out. Development of new and improved scale inhibitors for these types of applications within both methanol and MEG hydrate control chemicals will be outlined. Field case studies from the North Sea and Southern Africa will be used to illustrate the scale control challenges and how they have been overcome with engineering and production chemical solutions.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".