MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415778007 · doi:10.2118/230022-ms

Challenges and Innovation in Testing and Producing Offshore Sour Gas Fields Expected to Contain Problematic Elemental Sulfur Deposition

2025· article· W4415778007 on OpenAlexaff
Amna Al Yaqoubi, Youcef Azoug, Natela Belova, Timothy I. Morrow, Jawahar Sadik Hudha, Françis Bernard, Paul M. Davis, Robert A. Marriott

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSulfurSour gasSolventPetroleumSubmarine pipelineDeposition (geology)Fossil fuelDiesel fuel

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Sour gas reservoirs with very little C2+ have the potential to produce native elemental sulfur which can lead to elemental sulfur deposition, which in turn causes flow assurance and corrosion issues. For an economically successful mitigation of sulfur deposition, a producer needs to have an accurate determination of the elemental sulfur loading, a robust phase behavior model and a comprehensive solvent deployment plan. With knowledge of the sulfur loading in the reservoir and the phase behavior model, the optimum solvent type and injection rate to mitigate the sulfur can be selected. Traditionally, sulfur dissolved in these gases is measured using downhole sampling tools during flowback testing. Where continuous-flow solvents are injected downhole, the returned solvent can be analysed for elemental sulfur to get more accurate sulfur contents and subsequently more accurate predictions of sulfur deposition profiles after comparing to accurate thermodynamic models. This paper describes (a) preliminary solvent selection, (b) solvent analysis during flowback testing and (c) production management to optimize or reduce future solvent needs. Utilization of an injection string upon flow testing of an offshore test well has allowed ADNOC to flow sulfur solvent and capture downhole samples during the well test period. While several solvents were considered, three solvents were proposed for use based on (i) sulfur solubility, (ii) future availability to the producing company (ADNOC), (iii) favourable physical properties, (iv) chemical compatibility and (v) low volatility. While not ideal, a diesel solvent was used during well testing due to immediate availability. Realtime analysis of the solvent during the flow test demonstrated the ability to optimize the early solvent injection rate to gas flow rate ratio and keep the flow string clean. While solvents can be collected and returned to a laboratory for future determination of sulfur saturation, testing on-site ensures that the solvent properties have not changed through slow chemical reactions and allows the producer to optimize the solvent flow rate during production testing, versus during field production only. This requires specialized pumping and solvent capacity during a flow test.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.247 · 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
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPetroleum Processing and Analysis→French-language works237,207→