MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092188990 · doi:10.4043/22155-ms

Deepwater Arctic - Technical Challenges and Solutions

2011· article· en· W2092188990 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rajiv Aggarwal, Richard D'Souza

Bibliographic record

VenueOTC Arctic Technology Conference · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOffshore Engineering and Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubseaArcticSubmarine pipelineGeologyFlexibility (engineering)The arcticOceanographyMarine engineeringSea iceEnvironmental sciencePetroleum engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper presents the alternatives available and assessment of floating platforms, stationkeeping and riser systems based on studies undertaken for Arctic fields. The industry experience with floating units for both drilling and production operations in the offshore areas subjected to ice features are discussed. The salient aspects of these systems are discussed considering the general characteristics of selected basins. The Arctic fields developed so far are in water depths up to 125 m and have used the Gravity Based Structures and detachable FPSOs, besides other systems such as jacket platforms and islands used in shallower water. There is significant industry interest in the development of Arctic and Sub-Arctic fields in water depths beyond commercial viability of bottom founded designs. The water depths in some North American and offshore Greenland Basins are up to 2,800 m. The development of fields in deeper water would require use and adaptation of floating units and subsea systems, which have been used in many deepwater basins. However, their use in deepwater Arctic would add significant challenges from harsh weather, severe ice features (pack ice, icebergs), lack of infrastructure, remoteness, and reduced accessibility. The floating unit designs, alternatives for sub-systems, and subsea solutions and technologies are enabling development of Arctic fields offshore Norway and Russia, such as Goliat and Shtokman in up to 350 m water depth. Floating units provide flexibility in field development and ability to detach and move the unit from the path of significant ice loading events and icebergs. These features enable improve their technical and commercial feasibility by reducing load effects and risks. Challenges in Arctic The development of hydrocarbon fields offshore Arctic and Sub-Arctic in the North, have gained significant importance due to potential for very large reservoirs increasing their commercial viability. Some of the important leasing areas in the Arctic or Sub-Arctic offshore identified in Fig. 1 are in deepwater and ultra-deepwater: Barent Sea, offshore Norway and Russia; Orphan Basin, offshore Newfoundland; and fields offshore Greenland and Iceland. The water depths vary from 300 m to 3,000 m in these leases and several of these fields are in exploratory drilling or in the development planning stages.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.150 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations8
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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