MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2942460045 · doi:10.4043/29332-ms

Ultra-Long Subsea Gas Condensate Tie Back – Pseudo Dry Gas – Liquid Handling System

2019· article· en· W2942460045 on OpenAlex
Terry Wood, Afshin Pak, Laura Liebana, David McLaurin, Stephen Stokes

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 · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOffshore Engineering and Technologies
Canadian institutionsIntecsea (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubseaWet gasPetroleum engineeringPressure dropDry gasPipeline transportFlow assuranceEnvironmental scienceMarine engineeringEngineeringWork (physics)Waste managementEnvironmental engineeringMechanical engineeringChemistryMechanicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Pseudo Dry Gas (PDG) technology / concept has been demonstrated for transporting wet gas in a long subsea tieback pipeline (200 km) in deep water depths (1.8 km) under wet gas conditions (water saturated gas) [Ref.1] along with a state of the art technology review of existing solutions. When a multiple of these in-line / piggable liquid removal units are used, they help to reduce the well back pressure by reducing the liquid content to an extent where ‘dry gas’ pressure losses are seen. Therefore, this mitigation of the gravitational pressure drop allows the use of larger pipelines to minimise the frictional pressure drop. This in turn increases recovery of reserves and allows tie back distances to be enhanced. The objective of this paper is to investigate a Pseudo Dry Gas System (PDGS) for an ultra-long deep-water gas condensate development, building upon the research and development already conducted with Strathclyde University. This work was undertaken using non-standard flow assurance methodologies and simulations recycling data and results with the advanced Computational Fluid Dynamics simulations of the liquid removal units behaviour, over various operational boundary conditions. Engagement with subsea equipment suppliers based on the flow assurance results has been undertaken. This paper describes how gas condensates within a subsea tieback system behave very differently to condensed water from a wet gas system and therefore a pseudo dry gas system needs to be configured differently for gas condensate developments. These differences include how and where the liquid drops out of the gas phase, where and if the free liquid is reabsorbed back into the gas stream and how the bubble point of condensate is equal to or very close to liquid removal units operating pressure; this greatly impacts the liquid handling system compared to a wet gas (water) design. Therefore, to ensure controlled liquid only transportation, careful examination of the liquid removal units performance, the liquid pump selection criteria and optimisation of the system needs to be undertaken. This results in a trade-off between maximum reserve recovery and system complexity. The paper demonstrates that the liquid condensate system will remain as a single liquid phase pipeline, where the number of pumps can be reduced and the pump power requirements are very low and within the existing technically qualified subsea pumps.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.325
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.192
Teacher spread0.183 · 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