MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041180308 · doi:10.2118/117584-ms

Conventional OTSG Development for Heavy Liquid Fuel Firing in Thermal Applications

2008· article· en· W2041180308 on OpenAlex
W P Setchfield, J. Roset, Mario Schaffer, Dennis O’Connor, K Kense

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsTotal (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNatural gasEconomic shortageWaste managementVolatility (finance)Environmental sciencePetroleum engineeringFuel oilLiquid fuelThermalSteam injectionAsphaltEngineeringProcess engineeringChemistryMaterials scienceBusinessGovernment (linguistics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The large expansion in future Canadian extra heavy oil in situ thermal production (e.g. SAGD) projects will dramatically increase the demand for natural gas, the current predominant fuel used for the associated steam generation. For thermal (SAGD) applications, depending on the Steam Oil Ratio (SOR), approximately 40,000 T/day of steam CWE (Cold Water Equivalent) is injected to produce 100,000 bpd of bitumen, requiring some 100 M SCF/day of natural gas to be fired in Once Through Steam Generators (OTSG's.) Potential natural gas shortages and related price volatility dictate that operators consider alternative fuels for the projected near future growth in Alberta's in situ thermal production. This paper targets the use of bitumen from upstream sites and derivative residues from upgrading activities as the most convenient alternative fuel sources for thermal operators of established ‘horizontal type’ gas fired OTSG's. Past attempts to adapt / convert existing gas fired OTSG's to heavy liquid firing were unsuccessful because the conversions were made in haste, without properly addressing and resolving the many fundamental technical challenges involved. In consequence extensive operating problems and resultant poor reliability caused the trials to be abandoned. Furthermore at that time a cost saving benefit in displacing gas burn against heavy liquid was not consistently evident to support the further investment required. Hence only ‘new design’ OTSG units can be sensibly considered for alternative heavy liquid fuels, also, retaining natural gas as a fuel option gives the Oil & Gas Operator a Multi Fuel OTSG, and some choice in the fuel market place. This paper presents the methodology, the issues associated with bitumen / residue burning and the related technical solutions in development for this Multi Fuel OTSG product - natural gas firing being retained as an option and for start up. The concepts and details of the largest transportable OTSG modules are considered, based on manufacturer TIW Western Inc's (TIWW) established gas fired designs, addressing changes necessary for heavy liquid fuel firing. Combustion, furnace and convection section configurations and materials of construction have been selected for optimal performance / availability, whilst taking due accounts of fouling, cleaning and erosion issues, and both high and low temperature corrosion factors. Recognising that liquid fuel combustion increases CO2 and other emissions over natural gas firing the technical options for mitigation are being addressed in parallel studies.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.565
Threshold uncertainty score0.655

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.247 · 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