MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800768331 · doi:10.4043/28660-ms

Design Considerations to Minimize Hydrocarbon Entrainment in the Aqueous Phase

2018· article· en· W2800768331 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOffshore Technology Conference · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWellheadHydrocarbonEntrainment (biomusicology)Petroleum engineeringEmulsionEnvironmental scienceProcess engineeringAqueous solutionEffluentChemistryEnvironmental engineeringChemical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract It is critical to minimize the amount of free hydrocarbon entrained in the aqueous phase (i.e., Produced Water or Rich Monoethylene Glycol (MEG) streams) in order to mitigate impact on the operational performance of the Effluent Water Treatment and MEG Recovery Unit facilities. Hydrocarbon entrainment in Produced Water or Rich MEG is often the result of process conditions that favour emulsion formation and/or hinder emulsion separation. Consequently there is a need to look at the process and equipment design employed, along the flow path that the hydrocarbon/aqueous phase travels through, prior to entering the separation equipment used for hydrocarbon removal from the aqueous phase, as well as the separation equipment itself. The paper will present a roadmap of the overall route that the aqueous stream can take to offer insight into the process units affected by improper hydrocarbon removal. Operational situations arising from the impact of excessive hydrocarbon entrainment will be given as well as a summary of wellhead operating parameters that need to be considered in terms of their impact on equipment selection/design. The flow path, to be focused on, starts at the reservoir/wellhead and ends where the aqueous stream leaves the final hydrocarbon removal equipment, just upstream of either the Effluent Water Treatment or MEG Recovery Unit facilities. Factors concerning emulsion formation and separation are introduced as required to describe how process fluid properties and flow conditions influence the formation of emulsions and the separation of hydrocarbons from the aqueous phase. How to improve on existing methods for the selection/design of liquid-liquid separators by considering and trying to estimate the entire droplet size distribution (DSD) of the dispersed phase in the stream entering the separation equipment, along with estimating the amount of coalescence, will be elaborated on. This is paramount to ensure the correct equipment is selected, especially when the low end of the distribution, particularly drops below 20 μm, can be quite difficult to remove. Design considerations to minimize hydrocarbon content in the aqueous phase will be discussed and involve looking at key areas of energy dissipation (e.g., choke and control valves) regarding the range of fluid properties and process conditions, and the estimation/influence of drop size distribution/fractional interface coalescence efficiency (fICE) on the selection/sizing of fluid-fluid separator technology. Examples of dealing with emulsion issues occurring in industry, as per vendor experience, will be presented as well as available vendor equipment technology. General recommendations concerning lab bench testing, modelling, and equipment/chemical vendor testing will also be discussed.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.629
Threshold uncertainty score0.488

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.260 · 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