MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038828806 · doi:10.2118/0911-0028-jpt

Drilling Automation: A Catalyst for Change

2011· article· en· W2038828806 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Petroleum Technology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOil and Gas Production Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeabedDrillingDrillOffshore drillingAutomationMarine engineeringEngineeringRobotSoftwareWork (physics)Manufacturing engineeringMechanical engineeringComputer scienceGeologyArtificial intelligenceOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seabed Rig is a small company named after its audacious vision: creating a device able to drill a well on the bottom of the ocean. The company, 20% owned by Statoil, is using what it learned from a prototype to build a rig capable of drilling on land, or an offshore platform, with no workers on site. “You command it, you don’t control it,” said Kenneth Søndervik, vice president of sales and marketing at Seabed. Rather than a person controlling machines putting together pipes, an automated system will respond to a command, such as “pick up 3,000 meters of pipe,” from the computer program controlling drilling. The ability of these machines to work together on their own is essential for Seabed because Statoil needs a rig capable of drilling in the Arctic, and other environments that would put workers in harm’s way. This semantic distinction points to a fundamental change in the drilling business, and the people who work on the rigs. Seabed is building a rig like no other, using components supplied by oil and automation companies. “The big thing is we are not an inventing company. We are an engineering company taking all that’s out there,” said Søndervik. Seabed is working on creating a confined rig floor—the footprint is 9 m by 9 m—with robots programmed using software developed for NASA by Energid Technologies. The US company’s software is also being used to control the next generation of lunar rovers. For the drilling, Seabed will be choosing from a growing number of major oil and service companies developing software that does the job. Statoil, ExxonMobil, Petrobras, Schlumberger, National Oilwell Varco (NOV), and Baker Hughes, represent a sample of the technology leaders seeking ways to program all or parts of the drilling process. Shell appears to have taken it the furthest, with an automated program that has drilled multilateral wells. “It is not science fiction, it is what we have done,” said Peter Sharpe, executive vice president of wells at Shell. Its SCADAdrill System has been demonstrated in Canada and the Netherlands, with testing in progress in two US shale plays, the Marcellus and Haynesville.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.208 · 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