MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2512887987 · doi:10.5006/c2015-05447

Mystery of SAGD Casing Gas Corrosivity and Corrosion Mitigation Strategy

2015· article· en· W2512887987 on OpenAlexaff
Qiang Liu, Jack Whittaker, R. Sydney Marsden

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCorrosion Behavior and Inhibition
Canadian institutionsCenovus Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCasingCorrosionPetroleum engineeringEnvironmental scienceEngineeringMetallurgyMaterials scienceWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) process, casing gas from the producers consists of a mixture of produced gas and carry-over steam. The produced gas contains approximately 15% CO2 and 0.6% H2S with temperatures up to 180°C. For the corrosivity of casing gas, CO2 corrosion modelling predicts a corrosion rate (CR) of 600 mpy (15 mm/y). Mackinawite corrosion modelling predicts a rate of 270 mpy (6.75 mm/y). The results from both corrosion models predicts that the casing gas should be severely corrosive under these conditions. However, results from corrosion coupon (CC) and probe monitoring in the associated pipelines indicated low to moderate general and pitting CRs at the higher temperatures with the CR increasing as the temperature was lowered. A corrosion product analysis supported that a passivation film of pyrrhotite and magnetite had formed at temperatures above 90°C. Also, the more tenacious siderite is formed at temperatures higher than 90°C, contributing to the corrosion protection. The corrosion caused by the casing gas was aggravated further by the injection of inhibited methanol for freeze protection purposes. A corrosion mitigation program was implemented that included regular pigging, the application of a corrosion inhibitor, a corrosion mechanism study, CR monitoring and a non-destructive examination program. The program was effective in reducing the CR and the operational reliability of the pipeline was maintained. This paper discusses a proposed passivation mechanism that explains the lower than expected corrosion rates based upon the research results of peers. It also details the additional corrosion mitigation program that effectively reduced corrosion to acceptable rates.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCorrosion Behavior and InhibitionFrench-language works237,207