Design Concept for Steel GBS with Crude Storage in Arctic and Cold Regions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract As the demand for energy resources continues to grow, the oil and gas industry is looking north to the Arctic for discovery and extraction of offshore hydrocarbon resources. In seasonal ice covered waters and regions frequented by icebergs where ice loads are significant; the Gravity Based Structure (GBS) has been shown, in cases, to be the preferred technically feasible solution (e.g. Hibernia, Hebron, Sakhalin 1, and Sakhalin 2). In remote locations, where there may be no pipeline infrastructure or the cost of such infrastructure may be too high, the GBS can be designed to offer storage at a reasonable cost. In some circumstances, a ballasted steel structure might have advantages over traditional steel reinforced concrete structures, as outlined in this paper. In these areas where ice loads are significant, the majority of installed Gravity Based Structures are comprised of steel reinforced concrete. This paper presents the concept of a steel GBS with a storage option for remote Arctic regions. The proposed structural design of the steel GBS is based on the study of ice loads and associated stability. The sizing, advantages and limitations of the unique hull structure are discussed in this paper. The paper discusses about the design and construction of a steel hull GBS capable of withstanding both first year ice and multi-year ice loads in an Arctic setting, where there is future proposed route for ice-class shuttle tankers. For the purpose of this paper, water depths between 30m and 50m are considered for the design of the structure. Optimized sizing of the GBS for various water depths, in order to achieve an approximate storage of six to eight days of crude oil production, is discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".