MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996453557 · doi:10.2118/0710-0031-jpt

Statoil: A Journey Across Energy Frontiers

2010· article· en· W1996453557 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John L. Sheehan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Petroleum Technology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicGlobal Energy and Sustainability Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)General partnershipPetroleum industryBusinessManagementEconomyEngineeringGeographyEconomicsFinanceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Editor’s note: This is the first in a series of profiles of leading operators, including key international and national oil companies, around the globe. The focus is on the company’s strategic direction, relationship to its government, major upstream activity, and significant technology challenges and applications. As the Norwegian Continental Shelf (NCS) matures, Statoil is trying to earn maximum value from its home patch, while at the same time repositioning itself for future growth internationally. Originally formed in 1972, Statoil merged with rival Hydro in 2007 to create StatoilHydro, before the Statoil name was reclaimed last year when the company was rebranded. The new Statoil adopted a star-shaped logo, inspired by the starry skies of the north, to symbolize its aspiration to be a “pathfinder” in oil, gas, and other energy forms. The merger of the two Norwegian energy giants strengthened the new company organizationally, technologically, and financially, says company Chief Executive Officer Helge Lund. “We are a larger company, more competitive in an international context. Since the merger we have been able to attack more business opportunities in more countries,” he said. “Entering the Shtokman partnership in Russia, taking over as operator of Peregrino in Brazil, acquiring a substantial shale-gas position in the US, and delivering a winning bid in Iraq are some of the business opportunities we have captured since the merger.” Statoil is the largest operator on the NCS, with approximately 60% of its total production. It also operates oil and gas fields in Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Brazil, Canada, China, Iran, Libya, Nigeria, Russia, the United States, and Venezuela. In the long term, as well as garnering maximum potential from the NCS, Statoil is looking to its international asset base to allow it to grow and become more diversified, both in geographical terms and in types of production. The company also has ambitions to develop profitable midstream and downstream positions as well as a strong renewable base, particularly in wind power. In offshore wind, Statoil is in a partnership to develop the Sheringham Shoal project in the UK, with 88 turbines coming on stream in 2011. The Forewind consortium, in which Statoil participates, was awarded the largest development area in the UK’s third licensing round for offshore wind farms. Meanwhile, off the western coast of Norway, Statoil is testing a prototype of the world’s first full-scale floating wind turbine, Hywind, designed for operation in deeper waters. Upstream Priorities Traditionally, Statoil’s focus has been on its upstream activities and the company has identified four priority growth areas moving forward: deep water, gas-value chains, harsh environments, and heavy oil.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.813
Threshold uncertainty score0.740

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Petroleum TechnologySame topicGlobal Energy and Sustainability ResearchFrench-language works237,207