Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Presently, there are over 3,750 platforms installed in the OCS region of the Gulf of Mexico. Ever since platforms have been installed, there has only been 1 year in which removals outnumbered installations. As many of these platforms reach the end of their useful life (average of 20 years), the liabilities and cost associated with their removal become a major concern for oil companies. During the years between 1986 and 1999, approximately 1,414 structures were removed. Of those structures, approximately 66% were removed by explosive methods. Explosives are widely used because they are safe, reliable, and cost effective. This paper will present the methodology of explosive usage for platform removals. Included in the paper will be a review of field data, cost comparisons with other methods, safety, and governmental regulations relative to platform removals involving explosives. The limitations regarding explosive usage will also be discussed. Development of new products and processes involving explosive technology will be presented. Introduction Explosives have been widely used in the oil industry from the beginning. Explosives have been used in seismic activities, perforating of formations, construction of trenches for pipelines, and the extinguishing of oil well blowouts. The first use of explosives for decommissioning and salvage of offshore structures is impossible to document. More than likely explosives were first used to sever well conductors in the mid to late 1950's. Eventually, explosives were primarily used for all platform removals in the Gulf of Mexico. During the early 1980's, there were no less than 10 companies offering explosive services for platform decommissioning. Many companies offering explosive services were actually diving and wireline operations. Environmental concerns relative to endangered species in the mid 1980's caused a drastic change in the way explosives were used offshore. Before this time, there were no rules or regulations to follow. The basic rule of thumb was, "if 5 pounds does a good job, 10 pounds does a hell of a good job". To date explosives have been used for platform removals all over the world. Since the Gulf of Mexico has the most platforms as well as the most removals this paper will concentrate on the rules, regulations, and technology that is employed in the Gulf. Historical Perspective The use of explosives for platform decommissioning before 1986 was not documented formally by the owners, operators, or governmental agencies. On April 15, 1986, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) sent a letter to Regional Director of the Mineral Management Service (MMS), Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Region. This letter expressed the concerns regarding stranding (to run ashore) events in 1985 & 1986. These strandings coincided with a number of explosive platform removals that were conducted in the State of Texas territorial waters. NMFS suggested that a correlation could exist between these stranding and the use of explosives for platform decommissioning. (Ref. 1) Consequently, MMS imposed an "unofficial moratorium" on platform removals. This was in an effort for industry to take the environmental issue seriously.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».