Peer Review of Interim Report on Computational
Fluid Dynamics Model for Predicting Wellhead
Oil-Burning Efficiency at Bench and
Committee on the Peer Review of Interim Report on Computational Fluid
Dynamics Model for Predicting Wellhead Oil-Burning Efficiency at Bench and
Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology
Division on Earth and Life Studies
A Consensus Study Report of
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
This activity was supported by contracts between the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE). This report has not been reviewed by BSEE, nor has it been approved for publication. Approval, when given, does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Bureau, nor does mention of the trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. Study concept, oversight, and funding were provided by the Department of the Interior, BSEE, Oil Spill Preparedness Division, Sterling, VA under OSRR Project 1063 Contract Number 140E0121C0002. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-68297-8
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-68297-5
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/26211
Additional copies of this publication are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2021 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Peer Review of Interim Report on Computational Fluid Dynamics Model for Predicting Wellhead Oil-Burning Efficiency at Bench and Intermediate Scales. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26211.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.
Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.
Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.
For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.
COMMITTEE ON THE PEER REVIEW OF INTERIM REPORT ON COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS MODEL FOR PREDICTING WELLHEAD OIL-BURNING EFFICIENCY AT BENCH AND INTERMEDIATE SCALES
MARGARET WOOLDRIDGE (Chair), University of Michigan
JACQUELINE H. CHEN, NAE, Sandia National Laboratories
FREDERICK L. DRYER, NAE, University of South Carolina
TAREK ECHEKKI, North Carolina State University
IPSITA GUPTA, Louisiana State University
JOSEPH KATZ, NAE, The Johns Hopkins University
ROBERT P. LUCHT, Purdue University
HOPE A. MICHELSEN, University of Colorado Boulder
VEDHA NAYAGAM, Case Western Reserve University
ALI S. RANGWALA, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
ABHISHEK SAHA, University of California, San Diego
WILLIAM A. SIRIGNANO, NAE, University of California, Irvine
SIBENDU SOM, Argonne National Laboratory, University of Chicago
MAGGIE WALSER, Co-Study Director
LIANA VACCARI, Co-Study Director
JESSICA WOLFMAN, Research Associate
BENJAMIN ULRICH, Senior Program Assistant
BOARD ON CHEMICAL SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY
SCOTT COLLICK, DuPont
JENNIFER SINCLAIR CURTIS, University of California, Davis
GERARD BAILLELY, Procter & Gamble
RUBEN G. CARBONELL, NAE, North Carolina State University
JOHN FORTNER, Yale School of Engineering and Applied Science
SAMUEL H. GELLMAN, NAS, University of Wisconsin–Madison
KAREN I. GOLDBERG, NAS, University of Pennsylvania
TIMOTHY HALL, McNesse State University
MIRIAM E. JOHN, Sandia National Laboratories (Ret.)
JODIE L. LUTKENHAUS, Texas A&M University
JOSEPH B. POWELL, Shell Global
SALY ROMERO-TORRES, Thermo Fisher Scientific
PETER ROSSKY, NAS, Rice University
REBECCA T. RUCK, Merck Process Research & Development
RICHMOND SARPONG, University of California, Berkeley
VIJAY SWARUP, ExxonMobil
JEREMY MATHIS, Board Director
MEGAN HARRIES, Program Officer
LIANA VACCARI, Program Officer
LINDA NHON, Associate Program Officer
NICHOLAS ROGERS, Senior Finance Business Partner
THANH NGUYEN, Financial Business Partner
KESIAH CLEMENT, Research Associate
JESSICA WOLFMAN, Research Associate
ELISE ZAIDI, Communications and Media Associate
ABIGAIL ULMAN, Research Assistant
BEN ULRICH, Senior Program Assistant
ANIA ZOLYNIAK, College Student Hire
Acknowledgment of Reviewers
This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process.
We thank the following individuals for their review of this report:
Laura DeMarco, NAS, Harvard University
Peyman Givi, University of Pittsburgh
Andrea Prosperetti, NAE, University of Houston
Kuochen Tsai, Shell
Krishna Venkatesan, GE Global Research
Yi Wang, FM Global
Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report, nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Dennis Bushnell, NASA, and Manuel Terranova, Peaxy, Inc. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies.
This page intentionally left blank.
Table of Contents
2 THE COMMITTEE’S RESPONSES TO THE CHARGE QUESTIONS
B ANONYMIZED COMMITTEE RESPONSES TO CHARGE QUESTIONS
C PEER REVIEW SCHEDULE AND COMMITTEE MEETING SUMMARIES
This page intentionally left blank.