MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2803006909 · doi:10.4043/28743-ms

Efficient Condensate Mercury Removal Offshore

2018· article· en· W2803006909 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tom Manelius, Imane Aguedach

Bibliographic record

VenueOffshore Technology Conference · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMarine and Offshore Engineering Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMercury (programming language)Environmental scienceNatural gasSTREAMSContaminationProduced waterWaste managementSubmarine pipelineEnvironmental chemistryEnvironmental engineeringChemistryGeologyEngineeringGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract There are Oil & Gas installations struggling with Mercury contaminated oil and gas streams. Mercury contaminants are not only toxic if exposed to staff, but it can also cause equipment damages and operational hazards. It is most often seen as an issue in the natural gas, especially in liquefaction operations, but there is an increasing interest and need to handle contaminated condensate streams, as well as glycol streams (MEG). The Mercury content in Oil & Gas streams vary significantly over the globe, even between specific fields. The Asia pacific region is generally known to be the most exposed, with Mercury levels often up to 100 times greater as an average, than in e.g. US or Canada Mercury rich wet gas wells will also have Mercury contaminated condensate, with Mercury present in different states and often adsorbed to other suspended particles. Up to now filtration processes for Mercury removal in condensate streams has primarily been used, however the presence of very fine particles, and Mercury levels in average several times above the target level, made filtration a troublesome offshore operation. In pursuit of better technologies, an improved solution has been found in disc stack centrifuge technology. The suitability has been assessed by using a fast and well-developed assessment process including laboratory tests and field pilot tests followed by full scale centrifuge installations. Particle sizes can be measured as a part of site testing. Mercury contaminants are typically small, often Hg resides in a relatively narrow particle size range, between 1–10 m micron, which explains why sufficient removal at process scale a can be achieved by filtration, but also why operation may be a challenging task with frequent filter blockages. A centrifuge processing system represent a separator option readily removing the Mercusry particle size range, including submicron particles, and can be made fully continuous, sealed and sized to handle required condensate flow processing. In average the stream leaving the centrifuge is found to be well below the acceptance level, moretowards concentrations typical for dissolved rather than particulate mercury level.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.466
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.210 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOffshore Technology ConferenceSame topicMarine and Offshore Engineering StudiesFrench-language works237,207