MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2917548544 · doi:10.2118/0417-0070-jpt

Technology Focus: Natural Gas Processing and Handling (April 2017)

2017· article· en· W2917548544 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xiuli Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Petroleum Technology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicOil, Gas, and Environmental Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNatural gasLiquefied natural gasNatural gas pricesEnvironmental scienceSubmarine pipelineNatural-gas processingFossil fuelWaste managementEnvironmental engineeringPetroleum engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Technology Focus Natural gas had a bullish year in 2016 as the average Henry Hub spot price jumped from USD 2.28/million Btu in January to USD 3.59/million Btu in December (+58%), “the largest percentage increase in price among energy commodities,” according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). According to the same source, the US market consumed 75.07 Bcf/D of gas in 2016, 0.6% more than 2015, while US consumer-grade natural-gas production was down 2.4% from 74.14 to 72.36 Bcf/D compared with 2015. Coupled with the electric-power (+4.2%) and industrial (+1.9%) sectors, this contributed to a noticeable rise in gas prices. Although the US is a net gas importer, 2016 officially marked the US as an exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG) (by Cheniere Energy from zero in 2015 to 0.5 Bcf/D in 2016). While gas transportation primarily by pipeline over land and LNG over water remain the most economically attractive means to transport large quantities of gas over long distances, cost-effectively monetizing stranded gas is still a challenge, especially in offshore environments. A recent absorption-system development by ExxonMobil claims to improve the efficiency of removing water vapor from natural gas, in both on- and offshore environments, by shrinking the surface footprint by 70%, reducing the overall weight by half, and, ultimately, lowering the total cost. This technology should enable the development of some otherwise uneconomical fields. To learn more, attend the SPE workshop Floating LNG—Weathering the Challenges, in Kuala Lumpur on 20–21 March, and the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, on 9–11 October in San Antonio, Texas, USA. Recommended additional reading at OnePetro: www.onepetro.org. SPE 181610 Planning for Uncertainties in Gas Composition: Reduce Project Risks by Early Adoption of a Robust Gas-Processing Concept by Pavan Chilukuri, Shell, et al. SPE 183510 Flared-Gas Monetization With Modular Gas-to-Liquid Units: Oilfield Conversion of Associated Gas Into Petrol at Small Scales by Zhong He, Primus Green Energy, et al. SPE 183403 New Economical Process To Monetize High-CO2 Natural Gas by Conrad Ayasse, Canada Chemical Corporation, 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 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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.812
Threshold uncertainty score0.790

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.238 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Petroleum TechnologySame topicOil, Gas, and Environmental IssuesFrench-language works237,207