MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W77872932 · doi:10.5006/c2004-04163

Rehabilitation of an Aged Produced Water System

2004· article· en· W77872932 on OpenAlexaff
Scott Oliphant, Ron Schlachter, Bradford Morse

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWastewater Treatment and Reuse
Canadian institutionsCanadian Natural Resources
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRehabilitationMaterials scienceEnvironmental scienceForensic engineeringEngineeringMedicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Produced water injection systems are an integral part of many oilfields. Typically they transport produced water from a central pumping facility to a number of injection wells. The two main purposes of produced water systems are to maintain voidage in the reservoir and to maintain reservoir pressure. The subject produced water system was installed in the early 1970’s and was originally internally coated with cement mortar lining (CML). This lining was applied to the main injection lines, laterals and risers. Failures began to occur after about 15 years of service and were due to cracking, spalling and degradation of the CML. These leaks resulted in environmental damage and excessive spill clean up and repair costs. An extensive program to rehabilitate the system was undertaken. The main pipeline sections were re-lined with high-density polyethylene (HDPE); spools and risers were internally coated with fusion bond epoxy (FBE). After about ten years, failures began to occur in the refurbished pipe spools coated with FBE. Coating failures were attributed to inadequate surface preparation, inconsistent coating thickness and improperly installed flange gaskets led to other failures. Due to environmental impact and high clean up costs, and resulting management and regulatory pressure, it was decided to replace all buried spool pieces. Various alternatives such as corrosion resistant alloys, weld overlays and internal lining with HDPE were considered. Organic coatings were again chosen because of their overall past performance and cost. A “holistic” approach was taken to the rehabilitation program. This included the fabrication of complex pieces to make them more “coater friendly”, process changes by the applicator to enable more consistent coating application and a more rigorous specification and inspection program.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWastewater Treatment and ReuseFrench-language works237,207