First Jackup Drilling Operation on Grand Banks of Newfoundland-Lessons Learned
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Fifty years after the first jackup drilled its first well for Standard Oil Company of Texas in the Gulf of Mexico, jackup drilling operations commenced for the first time in the treacherous sea conditions on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. This paper addresses the risk management solutions, the boundary pushing technology, and the stakeholder cooperation that helped ensure jackup drilling operations on the Grand Banks could be performed without compromising safety and environmental protection. Recommendations are presented for continuing jackup activities in the region. Introduction The first well offshsore Newfoundland was spudded in 1966 utilizing a drillship. During the 1970's several drillships and semi-submersibles were active on the Grand Banks and the Labrador Shelf. The Hibernia discovery well was drilled in 1979 by a drillship and later that year a semi-submersible reentered the same well and conducted drill stem testing. Over 170 exploration-appraisal wells and 80 development wells have been drilled offshore Newfoundland all of which were drilled by either floating units or drilling installations mounted on a concrete platform. In 1996, the concept of jack-up drilling operations was proposed as an alternative way forward. The metocean operating conditions were determined to be within the capacity of new harsh environment jack-up designs. However, the iceberg and sea ice conditions on the Grand Banks required further deliberation. An ice statistical analysis and subsequently a risk assessment were conducted to quantify whether the proposed jackup concept was an acceptable one. The following rationale was then presented to the oil and gas community to promote jackup drilling operations as a feasible and desirable alternative.The jackup structure evolved quite substantially since drilling commenced offshore Newfoundland in the early 1970's.Non productive time in jackup drilling opertions is generally considered to be 10%-14% less than semisubmersible drilling operations.If one gives consideration to the anchor pattern of moored floating units during drilling operations, the footprint and hence an iceberg exclusion zone is approximately 10 times the area occupied by an elevated jackup.Jackup acceptance criteria have been standardized so as to guide industry and regulatory regimes with respect to site specific assessments.There is huge potential for mobilization and equipment certification cost savings by utilizing harsh environment jackups that are present in Atlantic Canada rather than importing floating drilling units from the international arena.The results of a risk assessment have ultimately demonstrated the feasibility of the jack-up drilling operation in the region. Upon completion of an independent study commissioned by Canada-Newfoundland regulatory authorities, an environmental impact study by an operator, the regulatory approval process for the drilling program, and a declaration that the ice free season had begun; a jackup was mobilized to Newfoundland waters to begin its first drilling operation on the Grand Banks. There were several lessons learned during the two years of seasonal jackup drilling activity in the region and the ultimate objective of this paper is to share those lessons with the oil and gas community.
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 | 0,001 | 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 | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».