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

Deepwater Arctic - Technical Challenges and Solutions

2011· article· en· W2092188990 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

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.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.279
Threshold uncertainty score0.853

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.046
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