MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061302246 · doi:10.1115/ipc2004-0408

Design and Construction of Pipeline Integrated Oil Storage Caverns

2004· article· en· W2061302246 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J. E. Broyles, Paul Dusseault, Frank Vanden Elsen

Bibliographic record

Venue2004 International Pipeline Conference, Volumes 1, 2, and 3 · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDrilling and Well Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline transportOil storageCrude oilPipeline (software)Work (physics)Petroleum engineeringEngineeringEnvironmental scienceCivil engineeringWaste managementEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In response to industry demand, Hardisty Caverns Limited Partnership (HCLP) has developed cost effective underground storage facilities with a capacity to store 480,000 m3 (3 million barrels) of crude oil. This project is unique through the integration of existing underground salt caverns into a significant North American crude oil transportation hub. Annually, 64 million cubic meters (400 million barrels) of oil move through this hub. This project utilizes existing caverns developed in the late 1960’s. Significant work was required to upgrade the cavern facilities and to construct new surface facilities to integrate the caverns into the crude oil transportation hub. Remote operation of the facility is performed from a control centre in Edmonton. In this paper, the key features of the design and construction of the Hardisty Cavern Storage Project will be presented. Of particular interest are the unique challenges presented due to hydraulic considerations related to cavern operation with multiple product characteristics and to provide crude oil movements exchanges between the cavern storage facilities and both low flow rate feeder pipelines and high flow rate transportation pipelines.

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 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 score0.860
Threshold uncertainty score0.764

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.190 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2004 International Pipeline Conference, Volumes 1, 2, and 3Same topicDrilling and Well EngineeringFrench-language works237,207