MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062025075 · doi:10.2118/69424-ms

Problems in Gas Hydrates: Practical Guidelines for Field Remediation

2001· article· en· W2062025075 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueAll Days · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOil and Gas Production Techniques
Canadian institutionsMartec (Canada)Dalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlow assuranceClathrate hydrateSoftware deploymentNatural gasPetroleum industryHydrateBiochemical engineeringComputer scienceProcess engineeringPetroleum engineeringProduction (economics)Fossil fuelEnvironmental scienceRisk analysis (engineering)Waste managementChemistryEngineeringBusinessEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Natural gas hydrate formation is a costly and challenging problem for the oil and gas industry. In recent years, two new families of chemical additives have been commercially developed to prevent hydrate plugging problems in production lines. This approach is commonly known as low-dose inhibition, and the two families are kinetic inhibitors and anti-agglomerants. Evolution of these new products is proceeding at a rapid pace, in order to meet goals of covering a greater range of operating conditions and finding an economically and environmentally attractive alternative to thermodynamic inhibition. Successful deployment of low-dose inhibitors depends on an appropriate selection of inhibitors and a complete understanding of the system. Based on a synthesis of available literature on application of low-dose inhibitors to hydrocarbon processing equipment and handling facilities, this paper describes a methodology for designing a deployment strategy. This guide provides a systematic approach to aid production engineers in deploying low-dose inhibitors in existing facilities and new developments. An easy-to-follow flow chart is given. The information provided in this article was compiled from published data, and experience provided by several companies in the oil and gas industry. Introduction Natural gas hydrate formation is a costly and challenging problem for the oil and gas industry and tends to be most critical for offshore facilities. Since the time when hydrates were first identified1, the oil and gas industry has injected a constant flow of resources into the search for an economic and environment friendly solution to the problem of hydrate prevention. Thermodynamic inhibition has been the conventional approach to natural gas hydrate inhibition. System composition or operating conditions are altered so that over the range of operating temperatures and pressures, the hydrocarbon system falls outside the pressure-temperature region in which hydrate formation can occur. (See Figure 1)2. Keeping operating pressures and temperatures out of the hydrate formation region can be achieved by making system adjustments such as applying heat, using insulated pipelines, or adding chemical compounds (thermodynamic inhibitors) that change the behaviour of the new mixture.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.546
Threshold uncertainty score0.241

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.262 · 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