Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) marine transportation is poised to be a viable solution to bring stranded and associated gas to markets. This is being driven in large part by high gas prices and declining gas production in North America and high liquid fuel prices elsewhere in the world. CNG marine transport has a market niche between the volumes and distances that pipelines and LNG can economically transport. New technologies have emerged and become commercially viable to provide a CNG marine transportation solution, including TransCanada's ASME approved Gas Transport Module (GTM). There are a number of challenges with the CNG technologies and regulations that must be overcome before general acceptance is gained. TransCanada PipeLines, being one of North America's largest transporters of natural gas, brings a unique perspective to this emerging technology. With over 50 years experience in high pressure gas handling and transportation systems, including experience operating a fleet of CNG transport trucks, TransCanada provides a different viewpoint than other marine company proponents. This paper gives an overview of the challenges and advantages of CNG marine transport from a gas transportation system operator point of view. These include cost/reliability issues, risks, technical challenges, and the safety and operability issues for high pressure gas systems, all with regard to the economic realities of CNG delivered into the North American gas grid or other world markets. Introduction With the increase in prices for oil and natural gas in recent years appearing to be a trend not a spike as in the 1970s, methods for transporting natural gas from either stranded reserves or to stranded markets are receiving increased attention. One method that has generated a lot of interest and development is Compressed Natural Gas or CNG marine transport. While CNG transport is not new, the large scale application to marine transport has not been demonstrated. Proponents investigating marine CNG transport face obstacles to incorporate an "untried technology" into energy infrastructure plans. It is important in the development of these types of projects to rely as much as possible on simple, proven processes and equipment in similar operating environments. While the complete CNG marine transport system has not been demonstrated, most components are in operation in similar environments and this experience, when applied to the project, should alleviate most concerns. History The bases for "new" CNG transportation systems are not really new. In their paper "Marine Transportation of Compressed Natural Gas, A Viable Alternative to Pipeline or LNG"1 the authors from Fluor reference an early CNG marine operation, that of Columbia Gas Company, who in the 1960s developed and tested a CNG carrier using vertical steel pressure vessels (Figure 1). In the late 1970s Texas Gas Transport Company was granted several patents for CNG truck transport and operated a fleet of CNG transport trailers. This technology was licensed to a Nova Pressure Transport, a subsidiary of Nova Corporation, predecessor to TransCanada that also operated a fleet of CNG transport trucks (Figure 2).
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".