E&P Industry's Challenges with Managing Mitigation Guidelines for the Protection of Marine Life During Marine Seismic Operations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Over the past decade, potential impacts from anthropogenic sound in the marine environment have received increased attention. The oceans are home to a diverse ecosystem and serve competing uses such as marine habitat, mineral resource operations, shipping, fishing, tourism and recreation. All human activities conducted in the oceans should be carried out in an environmentally responsible manner to ensure sustainability of the oceans. The E&P Industry operates globally in the offshore sector. Seismic survey operations are one source of anthropogenic sound in the marine environment and have received increased scrutiny over the years from regulators, environmental non-governmental organizations and the public. Though three decades of world-wide seismic surveying and various research projects provide no evidence to suggest direct physical injury to a marine mammal species, mitigation measures are commonly implemented to further reduce the level of potential risk of harm to marine mammals. The E&P Industry is committed to conducting offshore activities in an environmentally responsible manner, including complying with mitigation and monitoring regulations and guidelines. However, Industry believes that mitigation measures should be based on risk assessment and the best available science instead of the commonly applied precautionary principle. To date, several countries including Australia, Brazil, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States have implemented regulations or guidelines which specify mitigation measures for the protection of marine life when conducting seismic operations in their territorial waters. These mitigation measures vary from country to country while in many geographic regions, there are no guidelines in place. Operating globally, the Industry faces many challenges as it seeks to understand and implement these mitigation measures. This paper seeks to present a brief summary of current guidelines by region and discuss a recommended approach to mitigation measures.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it