Standardized Methodology for Inhibitor Evaluation and Qualification for Pipeline Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on the literature database and information from pipeline companies, the methodologies used to select inhibitors were critically reviewed. Round robin tests were carried out in three laboratories to assess reproducibility of the wheel test. In total, twelve (12) laboratory methodologies were evaluated. Field monitoring was carried out in Alberta at three fields — oily gas, gassy oil and oil transmitting — to support the laboratory evaluation, and to define the conditions under which specific laboratory methodologies can be used with the confidence that the laboratory data will predict field performance. Based on a quantitative comparison of field and laboratory general corrosion rates, pitting rates, and percentage inhibition (calculated from general corrosion rates and pitting rates) under three (3) different field conditions using four (4) continuous and two (2) batch inhibitors, the rotating cage, was ranked as the top methodology. In addition, this methodology is inexpensive and relatively simple to carry out. The rotating cage is recommended as a methodology to be standardized for evaluating and qualifying inhibitors for sour service.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".