MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3008966457 · doi:10.2118/0320-0024-jpt

Innovators Seek To Transform Flaring Into Money and Power

2020· article· en· W3008966457 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Trent Jacobs

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Petroleum Technology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicOil, Gas, and Environmental Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNatural gas pricesEarningsCommitIncentiveReputationOil shaleBusinessEconomicsNatural gasFinanceEngineeringMarket economyLawPolitical scienceWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rising levels of routine flaring in the US have caught the eye of many, especially innovators who see a big opportunity to marry environmental action with good business sense. All these technology developers are united around the idea that routine flaring equates to burning billions of dollars a year. But most shale producers, faced with low prices and chronic takeaway constraints, have had little incentive to invest in capturing associated gas. However, the broad reach of North American shale developments has made the flaring of associated gas one of the sector’s most visible public relations problems, drawing ire from environmentalists and increased scrutiny from the media, regulators, and investors. There are now concerns that the “clean” reputation of natural gas may be lost if too much of it is burned up at the wellsite, or worse, vented straight into the atmosphere. In an earnings calls last year, executives at Pioneer Natural Resources—the largest pure-play operator in the Permian Basin—told investors that the company flares the second-smallest percentage of associated gas among large explorers. Pioneer shared a chart showing that it burned less than 2% of its associated gas compared with a basin peer group average of 5%. Including this measurable in its earnings report was a first for Pioneer and suggests that flaring may be a differentiator going forward. This development was followed by Occidental Petroleum, another large Permian operator, which said in February that it would commit to zero routine flaring by 2030—becoming the first US-based producer to make such a commitment. One way operators are cutting flaring is simply by not outstripping their takeaway capacity. Sometimes this means slowing well development or shutting in wells. The goal also can be reached by investing in technologies that put associated gas to a productive use, while allowing crude to flow from wellheads unabated. The list of ideas includes mini-facility solutions such as small-scale gas-to-liquids (GTL), compressed natural gas (CNG) in a box, and portable LNG units, all of which make small quantities of associated gas able to be transported by truck. Another idea is using associated gas as feedstock for mini-power plants. “I’ve been to the sites with black, smoky flares,” said Audrey Mascarenhas. “I would look at people pulling power off the grid and using fuel gas while wasting their own energy in a flare stack—that just didn’t make any sense to me.” So what did make sense? Incinerators. Mascarenhas is an industry veteran and petroleum engineer who retired from Gulf Oil in 1999 only to immediately re-enter the industry as the chief executive officer of Questor Technology. She spent the next 20 years at the helm of the Calgary-based company trying to help oil companies kick the habit with a line of advanced incinerators called “clean combustion thermal oxidizers.” In addition to removing volatile organic compounds (VOCs), methane, and other pollutants from associated gas, thus delivering cleaner emissions, the heat generated from the incineration can generate power to run a wellsite or even help evaporate produced water into a cheaper-to-dispose-of slurry.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.020
Scholarly communication0.0170.022
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.011

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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