MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032893509 · doi:10.2523/iptc-11394-ms

KOC 1% Gas Flaring Target

2007· article· en· W2032893509 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Faisal Mohammed Alotaibi, Adnan Eid Al Adwani, Maher M. Nour

Bibliographic record

VenueAll Days · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicOil, Gas, and Environmental Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAssociated petroleum gasEnvironmental scienceFossil fuelWaste managementNatural gasEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Gas flaring is increasingly recognized as a major environmental problem, contributing more than 1% to global emissions of CO2 in addition to its valuable resource. At KOC an effective utilization of associated gas in all fields became a serious concern in 1995 and ongoing efforts were put in place for minimizing gas flaring. Detailed exercises were carried out in 1996/1999 for identifying causes, establishing action plans, and setting allowable targets. Current Action Plan covers the following on-going activities:Operating Process & ProceduresTraining & DevelopmentFlaring Awareness ProgramGas Supply TeamIn-hand Projects All the above-mentioned planned implementations are on schedule and are expected to be completed by 2010/2011 in order to reach the target of 1% gas flaring at KOC. INTRODUCTION Crude oil contains associated hydrocarbon gases and when brought to the surface the gases are released and where there is no market for the gas, the industry standard for disposal is flaring (1). Flaring of produced gas is the process of burning-off surplus combustible vapors from a well, either as a means of disposal or as a safety measure to relieve well pressure and it is the most significant source of air emissions from onshore and offshore oil and gas installations. Venting also occurs - releasing un-burnt gases directly into the atmosphere and alternatives include re-injection, on-site power generation, and transport to market (1). The following are the Four Main Causes of Gas Flaring:Culture: gas was once viewed as a waste product, global warming was not an issue.Contracts: flaring permitted and there was no obligation to find a market for the gas.Markets: markets poorly developed and responsibilities for marketing ill-defined.Governance: no incentive to maximize economic use of gas. According to the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (AEUB), there are four main reasons for flaring:As a part of the completion and testing of natural gas wells.During routine maintenance at gas compressing facilities.When oil wells produce very small amounts of solution gas.In emergency situations when there is an uncontrolled release of gas from a well or pipeline. AMOUNTS AND EFFECTS OF GAS FLARING World Bank estimates that over 150 bcm of gas is flared annually (2) and this is equivalent to the combined annual gas consumption of Germany and France. This amount of gas flared is also equivalent to 25% of US consumption. Reference to the figure below, the 40 bcm of gas flared in Africa is equivalent to half of the continent's power consumption.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.834
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0010.002

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.217 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAll DaysSame topicOil, Gas, and Environmental IssuesFrench-language works237,207