MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W278096620 · doi:10.5006/c2003-03645

The Safe Processing of High Naphthenic Acid Content Crude Oils - Refinery Experience and Mitigation Studies

2003· article· en· W278096620 on OpenAlexaff
David Johnson, G. McAteer, H. Zuk

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsNalcor Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNaphthenic acidRefineryWaste managementRefining (metallurgy)Pulp and paper industryMetallurgyCorrosionEnvironmental scienceMaterials scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The economics of processing opportunity crudes is often so attractive that more and more refineries are updating their strategy for purchasing these difficult crudes. The experience gained from treating over 50 high acid crude units over the last 20 years is used to manage the risks of processing new opportunity crudes. When developing a strategy for processing opportunity crudes, you must consider the total impact on the refinery - both positive and negative. This paper shows an effective way to analyze opportunity crudes for potential negative impacts on the process. Risk managing techniques for corrosivity studies, desalter emulsion stability, fouling prediction and stability issues are reported. Listed are laboratory and field evaluations utilising on-line monitoring systems, corrosion probes and corrosion coupons. Proper monitoring strategy is critical to successfully managing the risk of processing opportunity crudes. Finally, the use of high temperature corrosion inhibitors was successfully evaluated as a means to mitigate naphthenic acid corrosion.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPetroleum Processing and Analysis→French-language works237,207→