Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract During the last three decades, Risk Analysis has become an important tool for the Oil Industry. Risk Analysis methods have been used in a variety of ways as a means to evaluate exploration and development projects as well as a tool for investment decision. In addition, use of Risk Analysis methods for economic and engineering applications has become widely accepted. This article presents a review of the use of this tool specifically for drilling operations and describes the development and application of a method for risk analysis in fishing operations. The decision-making method described, that can be applied for various oilwell operations, is based on risk analysis theory and uses previous operation results in order to analyze if the operation being carried out is the one with the highest probability to conduct to the best economical result. An example of the method application utilizing actual field data is provided. Introduction Risk analysis can be a useful tool on certain processes where uncertainty is involved. In the last 35 years a number of articles have described methods where the use of risk analysis was deemed as fundamental to minimize losses or to maximize the possibility of adopting, for a certain situation, the right decision. Particularly, for drilling operations there have been various articles where different aspects of the drilling process have been studied using risk analysis as an auxiliary tool on the decision-making process. In 1968 a fundamental article1 was published relating risk analysis and drilling investment decision. This article did not deal specifically with any particular drilling process or operation; instead, it presented a method for assessing the degree of uncertainty involved in investments for exploratory drilling. Even though not dealing directly with drilling operations, that article presented a method to handle uncertainties that clearly could be extrapolated for dilemmas faced regularly on ordinary well operations. After that, various authors investigated the possibility of using risk analysis not only as a tool to be applied on resolutions regarding drilling exploratory prospects2, but also for specific drilling operation decisions like optimum depth to set a casing3, directional drilling4, wireline operations5, special remedial operations6, borehole stability7 and prediction of pore pressure and fracture gradient8. Also articles were written relating the use of risk analysis with safety and reliability of drilling operations9 as well as prediction of overall drilling costs10. Despite the large availability of theoretical sources and computational tools, use of risk analysis on drilling operations remains limited mainly due to the fact that it is still considered a sophisticated and complex tool which implementation is extremely intricate. Besides that, use of risk analysis tools requires methodical quantification of uncertainties and use of data from past operations that not always are easily available. This article presents a simple method to implement risk analysis on drilling operations requiring decisions under uncertainty. An example of application is also presented. Using Risk Analysis Implementation of risk analysis involves three basic steps: identifying an opportunity (or event) where the tool can be applied, quantifying the consequences of various possible decisions and assessing, within the possible outcomes, the estimated best economic or operational result.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».