MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2585140893 · doi:10.2118/1116-0075-jpt

Technology Focus: Offshore Production and Flow Assurance (November 2016)

2016· article· en· W2585140893 on OpenAlexaff
Sally A. Thomas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Petroleum Technology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOffshore Engineering and Technologies
Canadian institutionsConocoPhillips (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubseaFlow assuranceSubmarine pipelineEngineeringPetroleum engineeringPiggingPipeline transportMarine engineeringMechanical engineeringGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Technology Focus Subsea tieback of a new field to an existing offshore production facility is one option to minimize development costs. Alternative flowline or equipment specification is another option in addressing development costs. The three papers here discuss slightly different approaches to subsea flowlines and to offshore heating systems. All three have progressed to at least a full-scale demonstration stage, if not to actual field installation. Although carbon-steel flowlines have been the primary choice for most subsea flowlines, increasingly corrosive reservoir fluids lead to other material choices. In addition to corrosion-resistant-alloy cladding or pipe, thermoplastic composite pipe (TCP) is recognized as an alternative. As a result of a large joint-industry project, DNV recently issued a recommended practice for specification, design, and qualification of TCP. The use of a TCP recommended practice is expected to reduce project-specific implementation costs but maintain a consistent qualification approach. OTC 26512 discusses TCP properties, applications, installation, and operation. Hydrate and wax flow-assurance risks are typically mitigated by continuous chemical injection, heat, insulation, pigging, or a combination of strategies. Heat conservation (insulation) may be effective in short- to moderate-length flowlines but is insufficient in longer flowlines; active heating is needed there. Direct electric heating is proposed for flexible pipe. OTC 26939 describes using the carcass and tensile armor of flexible pipe to pass electric current so that only one end of the pipe is required to have electrical connections. The qualification testing on a 12-in.-diameter, 125-m-long flexible pipe is discussed, including low-voltage and high-voltage scenarios. Offshore-facility electric heating elements and power cables typically are low-voltage systems. Medium-voltage (up to 7,200 V) systems are suggested alternatives for facilities with megawatt-level electric heating requirements. Advances in metal-sheathed electric process heating and power controls suggest that significant savings are possible in footprint, efficiency, and reliability compared with conventional low-voltage systems. OTC 26389 discusses the case study used to select a medium-voltage, 2.6-MW heating system for a Gulf of Mexico location. Although the higher-voltage equipment capital cost is higher than the low-voltage equipment cost, installation, operating, and maintenance costs are less. Offshore opportunities continue to drive new technology applications and approaches. The three papers highlighted here focus on minimizing costs while providing safe, reliable operations. I hope you find them interesting. They reminded me to keep my mind open to new options. JPT Recommended additional reading at OnePetro: www.onepetro.org. OTC 26832 Application of Flexible Composite Pipe as a Cost-Effective Alternative to Carbon Steel—Design Experience by Syafiah Adam, Brunei Shell Petroleum, et al. OTC 24022 Buoyant Tower: Construction Challenges and Lessons Learned by Clyde Crochet, HortonGMC, et al. OTC 27176 Use of Advanced Composites in Offshore Pipeline Design by Naveen Ravirala, Wood Group Kenny, et al.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.247
Threshold uncertainty score0.826

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2470.155

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Petroleum TechnologySame topicOffshore Engineering and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207