MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075796938 · doi:10.2523/iptc-16913-abstract

The Production Facilities Key Safe Technology of Gas Fields with High H2S/CO2 or High Pressure

2013· article· en· W2075796938 on OpenAlexaff
Jun He, Lina Yang, Xili Ba, Chunyan Wang, Qi Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Petroleum Technology Conference · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOffshore Engineering and Technologies
Canadian institutionsPetro-Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWellheadSour gasEconomic shortageNatural gas fieldHigh pressureEnvironmental sciencePetroleum engineeringYield (engineering)Production (economics)Sichuan basinWaste managementEngineeringNatural gasMaterials scienceEngineering physicsGeologyMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract As the shortage of the energy, more and more gas fields with high H2S/CO2 or high pressure will be developed. China's high sour gas fields are mainly concentrated in the northeastern Sichuan Basin, Daqing Xushen and Jilin. As the representative of high sour gas field Luojiazhai gas field, the H2S content is 9.5% ~11.5%, CO2 7% ~ 8%. In Changling gas field the CO2 content as high as 27%. High pressure and high yield gas field are mainly concentrated in the Tarimu Basin Kela 2 gas field as the representative, single well yield is 105~140MMSCFD, wellhead flowing pressure up to 63.1MPa, corrosion is mainly from Cl- and CO2 the content of Cl- in produced water is up to 100667mg/l. For these gas fields developed still on initial stages in China, there are a series of difficult problems of safe technology for production facilities. Aiming at these problems, the paper introduces CNPC's safe technology by research. The production facilities key safe technology includes process technology, material selection, setup of safety instrument, safety relief, safe distances.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.564
Threshold uncertainty score0.648

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Petroleum Technology ConferenceSame topicOffshore Engineering and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207