MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078781224 · doi:10.2118/93387-ms

Sulfur Disposal by Acid Gas Injection: A Road Map and a Feasibility Study

2005· article· en· W2078781224 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sunil Kokal, Ahmed S. Alutaibi

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicOil, Gas, and Environmental Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSulfurSour gasAcid gasClaus processEnvironmental scienceWaste managementFossil fuelNatural gasHydrogen sulfideEnvironmental engineeringChemistryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Sour natural gas contains H2S and CO2, which have to be removed to meet specifications for sales gas. The removal process is done at the gas plants. The resulting acid gas streams (primarily H2S and CO2) are processed in sulfur recovery units or sulfur plants, which convert the H2S to elemental sulfur instead of burning it and flaring the produced SO2. The sulfur recovery units (SRU) are not a major revenue generator (due to the low sulfur price) and are primarily installed for environmental reasons. The total world sulfur production is anticipated to increase in the future, causing a downward pressure on sulfur prices. With low sulfur prices and large stockpiles of sulfur, it is worthwhile to consider alternate processes for handling sulfur. One such alternate is the injection of acid gas into a subsurface reservoir, much like injecting the produced water during crude oil production. Acid gas injection has several advantages and disadvantages. Advantages include low operating expenses, reduced sulfur emissions into the atmosphere, CO2 sequestration and the ability to handle wide range of acid gas compositions. Disadvantages include finding a geologically isolated disposal or storage reservoir, increased safety risks, subsurface migration and lost revenues from sulfur. Any one of these could be the controlling factor, and a detailed economic and environmental analysis is needed to decide whether an acid gas injection (AGI) scheme should be installed in lieu of sulfur recovery plant. The existing AGI schemes are primarily installed in Canada (a few in the USA) due to low sulfur prices, increased environmental regulations making it mandatory for operators to control sulfur emissions into the atmosphere, and availability of suitable depleted oil and gas reservoirs. This paper presents a roadmap for acid gas injection schemes including the technical and economic factors that need to be addressed in deciding whether AGI is feasible. An example feasibility study for a Saudi Arabian field is included as a case study.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 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

Citations7
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and ConferenceSame topicOil, Gas, and Environmental IssuesFrench-language works237,207