MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035323568 · doi:10.4043/21015-ms

Well Design Requirements For Deepwater And Arctic Onshore Gas Hydrate Production Wells

2010· article· en· W2035323568 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
S H Hancock, George J. Moridis, Alexandra Robertson, Scott Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueOffshore Technology Conference · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMethane Hydrates and Related Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClathrate hydrateMethaneSubmarine pipelinePermafrostPetroleum engineeringGeologyHydrateNatural gasArcticEnvironmental scienceOceanographyWaste managementChemistryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Gas hydrate wells will have a number of production challenges, including maintaining commercial gas flows with high water production rates; operating with low temperatures and low pressures in the wellbore; flow assurance issues including hydrates and freezing in the wellbore; controlling formation sand production into the wellbore; and ensuring well structural integrity with reservoir subsidence and/or changes in geo-mechanical properties along the wellbore. This paper addresses these production issues and outlines the design requirements for typical deepwater and arctic onshore gas hydrate production wells. Background Methane gas hydrates are solid crystalline compounds of water and methane gas, in which the molecules of methane occupy the lattices of ice-like crystal structures. Methane hydrates can form and accumulate in sandstones, shales, or silts, where methane and water is present under the necessary conditions of low temperature and high pressure, as illustrated in the following figure. Hydrates can occupy the pore spaces of sands and silts, and can also be found in fractures or lenses, and in some cases can act as the matrix supporting sediments. In North America, onshore gas hydrates can be found under permafrost in the US and Canadian Arctic regions, and offshore gas hydrates can be found in the deepwater margins around the continent. Internationally, offshore methane hydrates have been discovered in deepwater margins in many locations around the world. There has been no consistent effort to map and evaluate this resource on a global scale; therefore, current estimates of gas in place volumes vary widely, possibly up to many thousands of TCF (Moridis 2010). Given the sheer magnitude of the resource, ever increasing global energy demand, and the finite volume of conventional fossil fuel reserves, gas hydrates are emerging as a potential energy source for a growing number of nations, even if only a small portion of gas hydrates can be economically recovered. The attractiveness of gas hydrates is further enhanced by the environmental desirability of natural gas as opposed to solid or liquid fuels. Thus, the appeal of gas hydrates accumulations as future hydrocarbon gas sources is rapidly increasing and their production potential clearly demands technical and economic evaluation. The past decade has seen a marked acceleration in gas hydrate research and development.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations19
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOffshore Technology ConferenceSame topicMethane Hydrates and Related PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207