Risk Characterisation and Effects Monitoring Used to Evaluate Cost/environmental Benefit of Installing Improved Produced Water Treatment Technology on the Ekofisk Field (North Sea)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Norway has since 1998 developed a policy based on the "Zero Harmful Discharge" principle regulating the discharges of produced water (PW) based on the potential environmental effects of its components. A challenge linked to this policy is to assess the risk for the marine environment associated to the main components in the discharges. This risk characterisation will ultimately determine the measure to be implemented on a platform such as chemical substitution, installation of additional PW cleaning technology. A second challenge is to document the environmental benefits of the selected technology in a "Zero harmful impact" perspective. This implies that environmental monitoring tools that can be applied in field and for which enough knowledge are available to conclude on the impact level. These challenges were addressed for the Ekofisk field where additional PW cleaning technology has been installed in order to meet the "Zero Harmful Discharge" objective. A joint industry project was launched to document the environmental benefit of the technology selected based on novel monitoring techniques. Blue mussel and cod were exposed to realistic concentrations of produced water from the Ekofisk field in controlled short and long term experiments to establish exposure and effect concentration threshold levels for a series of responsive biomarkers. These biomarkers were thereafter applied in field monitoring before and after implementation of improved PW treatment technology at the field. The monitoring confirmed a reduction of the environmental footprint measured by biomarkers together with a reduction in discharge of oil in PW. This environmental footprint is seen as individual effect in a limited area, smaller than the predicted risk area. The results confirm the value of bio-monitoring tools for assessing environmental impact linked to PW discharges, but also the conservatism built in the environmental risk management tool in use in Norway as a decision tool for selecting measures based on a cost-environmental benefit approach.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".