MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977741967 · doi:10.2118/00-05-01

Drake F-76, In-Situ Abandonment of a High Arctic Offshore Completion and Facilities

2000· article· en· W1977741967 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Alan Duguid, R.A. McBeth

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Canadian Petroleum Technology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOffshore Engineering and Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsSubseaWellheadSubmarine pipelineCompletion (oil and gas wells)ShoreChristmas treeArcticNatural gas fieldEngineeringEnvironmental scienceOceanographyMarine engineeringGeologyPetroleum engineeringArchaeologyGeographyNatural gas

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Drake F-76 well was drilled in 1978 from an ice platform, in 55 m of water, offshore Melville Island, NWT, Canada. The well was completed as a prototype gas producer using a subsea production tree and subsea pipeline bundle to shore. Well testing and project feasibility testing were completed by 1979 and the project suspended. In 1993 a decision was made to abandon the well. An extensive program of research, planning, equipment refit and design was undertaken and completed over two years. Technical and environmental approvals were solicited and received from regulatory bodies. In the winter of 1995 - 1996 the wellhead was relocated and an ice platform constructed. A selection of purpose built and contracted equipment was mobilized to site and assembled. A subsea reconnection was completed, the wellhead was successfully function and pressure tested and the well subsequently re-entered and permanently plugged. The subsea tree and all associated flowline equipment were decommissioned and abandoned in-situ. This paper describes the subsea completion, the technical evaluation of the abandonment operation, and the methods used to successfully abandon the installation. FIGURE 1: Location of Drake F-76 project (Available in full paper) Introduction The Drake gas field is located on the east coast of the Sabine Peninsula, Melville Island, NWT as shown in Figure 1. The field, with approximately 5.7 tcf of proved and probable reserves is about 30 km in length and straddles the coastline with the reserves distributed almost equally between land based and offshore portions of the reservoir. The land-based portion of the field was explored and developed in conventional fashion in the early 1970s. While exploratory wells drilled from sea ice platforms had proven up the offshore reserves, there was a desire to develop and test production methods for this offshore gas. It was intended to show this gas could be delivered to production facilities for subsequent sale into the gas marketing projects then proposed for the early 1980s. In 1978, Panarctic Oils Ltd. successfully drilled, completed, and flow tested the Panarctic Hmstd et al. Drake F-76 well from a strengthened ice platform located approximately 1 km offshore Melville Island. The well was drilled to a depth of 1,128 m (KB) in water 54.9 m deep. The well was completed with a subsea production tree, two bundled 152 mm subsea flowlines to shore and gas processing and testing facilities onshore as shown in Figure 2. FIGURE 2: Drake Point facilities (Available in full paper) Remote wellhead control was provided from a shore-based control unit, through subsea control lines in the flowline bundles to a control module located on the wellhead. The Drake F-76 project was designed to demonstrate that offshore gas could be delivered into a land-based gathering system, through remotely operated subsea wells, despite the problems of sea ice, permafrost and generally challenging conditions. Although the project in itself was a success, no market for Arctic gas has been developed and the facilities have been dormant since 1978.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score0.179

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.163
Teacher spread0.158 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Canadian Petroleum TechnologySame topicOffshore Engineering and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207