MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013518066 · doi:10.4043/22083-ms

Arctic and Harsh Environment Pipeline Trenching Technologies and Challenges

2011· article· en· W2013518066 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Jukes, Shawn Kenny, Upali Panapitiya, Syed Jafri, Ayman Eltaher

Bibliographic record

VenueOTC Arctic Technology Conference · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOffshore Engineering and Technologies
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDredgingArcticPipeline transportSubmarine pipelineSubseaSeabedEngineeringEnvironmental scienceOceanographyMarine engineeringGeologyGeotechnical engineeringEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A primary challenge of Arctic and harsh environment offshore field development is the protection of subsea pipelines and flowlines on the seabed. Damage from ice either through direct contact or through soil movements/pressures acting on the pipeline from ice gouging is a serious risk. Trenching and burial of pipelines in Arctic and harsh environments such as the Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea and the Grand Banks are considered to be the primary means of preventing damage from ice. Trenching can provide adequate protection for pipelines in Arctic areas. This paper presents the challenges associated with trenching and burial of pipelines and flowlines in Arctic and harsh environments, and discusses the state-of-the-art trenching and dredging technologies. Future equipment developments required to meet functional specifications for working in Arctic and harsh environments is then presented. Furthermore, key areas surrounding the operability of trenching and associated equipment are also discussed. This paper shows that there are a number of challenges facing trenching pipelines in arctic regions, and there are limitations of current trenching and dredging equipments. A continued effort is required by the industry to overcome a number of key issues and challenges and promote productions in Arctic and harsh environment frontiers. Introduction The world demand for oil and gas is growing at an ever increasing rate and, as a result, there is a demand to explore new areas for more petroleum production. The arctic region is one of the remaining unexplored areas where such exploration still can be undertaken. According to the US Geological Survey estimates, the arctic region, mostly offshore, holds as much as 22% of the world's untapped reserve of hydrocarbons where much of the reserve is lying under seasonal or year-round sea ice. The exploitation of these remaining reserves, however, will depend upon meeting the technical challenges of design, construction, and operation of offshore installations. These general Arctic technical challenges have been previously presented [1].

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.148 · 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

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOTC Arctic Technology ConferenceSame topicOffshore Engineering and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207