MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019156765 · doi:10.4043/25729-ms

Multiphase Flow Modeling for Gas Hydrates in Flow Assurance

2015· article· en· W2019156765 on OpenAlex

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 · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMethane Hydrates and Related Phenomena
Canadian institutionsConocoPhillips (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlow assuranceMultiphase flowSlug flowPetroleum engineeringSluggingFlow (mathematics)SubseaClathrate hydrateTwo-phase flowMechanicsHydrateGeologyThermodynamicsEnvironmental scienceGeotechnical engineeringChemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multiphase flow is a central component in all flow assurance strategies in oil and gas production. The risk of plugging of flowlines due to hydrate formation is also one of the most prevailing flow assurance problems in subsea deepwater oil and gas operations. Hence, it is critical to develop a model to account for the inter-coupling of hydrates and multiphase flow. We present a new framework to model the effect of multiphase flow on hydrates and vice-versa. In the current work, we use a two-phase (gas/liquid) hydrodynamic slug flow model and explicitly incorporate hydrates as a third phase. The model is based on fundamental multiphase flow concepts and has the capability of predicting hydrodynamic slug formation and propagation in three-phase flow. The utility of this tool is demonstrated in the modeling of hydrate formation in gas-water and gas-oil-emulsified water systems by comparing the multiphase flow behavior in terms of flow regime, slug length distribution, number of slugs, and slug frequency. For the gas/oil system with emulsified water, we perform a systematic study on the aggregation of hydrate particles and the subsequent viscosification of the slurry, and its impact on the multiphase flow behavior of the system. The results reveal that hydrate formation has a significant effect on the slugging exhibited by the system, suggesting that one may be able to infer hydrate formation from the changes in the flow characteristics. As part of the validation of this model, we have performed an extensive comparison of the two-phase flow regime predictions of our model with available experimental data, as well as with a number of models available in literature. The results show that our model predictions are in good agreement with literature and the prediction accuracy of our model is higher than all the models compared. This establishes our model as a viable multiphase flow modeling tool to predict the flow behavior in oil and gas pipelines. Hence, in this work, we demonstrate the capabilities of the model to perform transient simulations of two-phase and three-phase flow. This is the first step in the development of the model, with the ultimate goal being completely understanding the interdependence of hydrates and multiphase flow, hence enabling flow assurance engineers to develop better hydrate management strategies.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.835

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.222 · 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