MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990731291 · doi:10.2118/127334-ms

Practical Application of Flow Assurance and Production Chemistry Test Results

2010· article· en· W1990731291 on OpenAlexaff
C.A. Robertson, Duong T. Liem, Probjot Singh, William H. Thomason

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Oil and Gas India Conference and Exhibition · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsConocoPhillips (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlow assuranceQuality assuranceWaxSubmarine pipelineProduction (economics)Process engineeringEnvironmental sciencePetroleum engineeringComputer scienceManufacturing engineeringChemical engineeringEngineeringMaterials scienceChemistryOperations managementGeotechnical engineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper describes the flow assurance and production chemistry test program implemented during the exploration and appraisal (E&A) phase of a new development area offshore Vietnam. The impact of the program on the facility design is described and program results are compared to operating experience. Fluid samples from several E&A wells were sent to the ConocoPhillips Production Assurance Technology Group in Bartlesville, Oklahoma for analysis. The analytical program consisted of the following groups of tests: General Properties: API gravity, sulfur content and total acid number (TAN). Separation Properties: Emulsion and foaming characteristics and asphaltene deposition tendencies Flow Assurance: Viscosity, pour point, paraffin content/distribution, wax appearance temperature (WAT), wax deposition rate and gel strength. The flow assurance test results had several positive impacts on facility and infrastructure design. Coordination between the Project Team, Operations and the Production Assurance Technology group led to significant insights which improved the facility design and operating procedures.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.282
Threshold uncertainty score0.336

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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Oil and Gas India Conference and ExhibitionSame topicPetroleum Processing and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207