MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092581026 · doi:10.2118/2006-095

New Correlation for Iron Sulfide Stability in Crude Oil Desalting Plants Wastewaters

2006· article· en· W2092581026 on OpenAlexaff
K. Zeidani, Alireza Bahadori, T. Cyr

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian International Petroleum Conference · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsAlberta EnergyUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrude oilSulfideChemistryIron sulfidePetroleum engineeringPulp and paper industryEnvironmental scienceEngineeringSulfurOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A common problem, which is critical to deep disposal of wastewaters, is deposition of scale in the pipelines, in the tubing, in the disposal well's perforations and in the receiving formation. Such deposition is attributed to incompatibility of the wastewaters being mixed or of mixture's interaction with the formation's rock and connate water. A generally good practice prior to injection is to do laboratory experiments to test the compatibility of these wastewaters. However, experience shows that compatibility tests do not reliably give an accurate indication of precipitation. Here, we show how to develop relevant correlations, which are useful for predicting precipitation of ions from such mixtures and then provide a practical example, which is for disposing different wastewaters collected from southwest Iranian desalting plants. Introduction In some Iranian oilfields, the production of salty wet crude is an important concern; many wells were shut in for lack of treating facilities. The water, which produced with this crude, is a water containing salts in a concentration of 150,000 to 220,000 ppm. Moreover, this crude contains particles of salt and stable salty water-in-oil emulsions. Treating this crude to remove salt and salty water is not an easy task [1]. Each treater has the following train of steps;an API separator separates free water from the crude,wash water and surfactant are mixed with the crude to form an emulsion,an emulsion-breaking surfactant is mixed with the emulsion, andan API separator separates free water from the crude. In practice for each treating plant, two or three treaters are placed in series to reduce the salt to an acceptable limit. However, for many wells' crude, such treating is inadequate. After much study, an electrostatic precipitator was added to one plant's treaters to remove droplets of water from the crude. This addition sufficed. Consequently, electrostatic precipitators were added progressively to Iran's treating plants and new treating plants were built. By the end of 2004 electrostatic precipitators had been installed in more than 20 treating plants; their total capacity is 207 Mm3/Day (1.3 MMSTB/Day) of treated crude. Yet new treating plants are being added to meet expected total production of wet crude, 400 Mm3/Day (2.5 MMSTB/Day) by year 2007. Figure 1 depicts the schematic of a typical treating plant in Iranian oil fields. The wastewater from a treating plant has volume, which typically is about 15% of the crude being treated and contains about two-thirds formation water and onethird wash water. The wastewater treated before it is injected into disposal wells; the wastewater treating system consists of a skimmer tank, API gravity separator, filter, and disposal tank. However, the water from one formation differs from that from another. Experience shows that when one treated wastewater is mixed with another, then deposition of scale in the pipelines, in the tubing, in the disposal well's perforations and in the receiving formation may occur. When this occurs, such waters are said to be incompatible with one another.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.682
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian International Petroleum ConferenceSame topicPetroleum Processing and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207