MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2554175916 · doi:10.2118/183412-ms

Oilfield Build Own Operate BOO Projects - A Good Execution Strategy for the Current Low Oil Price Environment

2016· article· en· W2554175916 on OpenAlexaff
David Bernstein, C González, Muhamad Heikal

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsStantec (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTimelineScope (computer science)Reliability (semiconductor)IncentiveProcess managementOperations managementComputer scienceEngineering managementBusinessEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objectives/Scope In the current low oil price environment, oilfield Build Own Operate (BOO) and Build Own Operate Transfer (BOOT) projects deserve consideration. Although generally the objective of BOO and BOOT projects are to reduce upfront capital costs and transfer risk to the BOO contractor, BOO and BOOT projects also offer excellent opportunities to incentivize innovation and reduce project lead time to complete, lowering project life-cycle costs and accelerating project returns. If the BOO project is structured properly - safety, quality, and reliability are not sacrificed. Methods, Procedures, Process This paper compares and contrasts BOO and EPC projects to describe advantages and tradeoffs for successful application of BOO projects. The performance of the Kuwait Oil Company (KOC) EPF-120 project in North Kuwait is reviewed, as a successful example of the application of BOO projects in the oilfield. The EPF-120 project is a BOO grass roots centralized Early Production Facility that processes 120,000 BPD of crude oil, 84,000 MMSCFD of gas and 80,000 BPD of produced water. The project has now been in service for the full term of its five years operations contract. Results, Observations, Conclusions The typical structure of BOO projects and EPC projects are described, and conventional EPC projects are compared to BOO projects. Incentives and disincentives for innovation are discussed. Typical project timeline for EPC projects will be compared to BOO project timelines. Mechanisms to achieve quality, safety, and reliability are provided. As an example of the opportunities that BOO projects offers, operations, maintenance, environmental, and safety performance of the EPF 120 project is reviewed, and examples of innovation implemented for the EPF 120 and for other BOO projects are provided. Additional costs of BOO projects - namely risk and financing are provided and compared to potential reduced life cycle cost and reduced project completion timeline. Operating challenges to execute a BOO project in an existing oilfield are presented. Trade-off between flexibility/innovation and specification/standardization are also discussed. Novel/Additive Information BOO is a solution in the oilfield to provide innovation and improved schedule without sacrificing quality, safety, and reliability. The skills required to successfully execute a BOO project will be detailed and include the following: process engineering and Front End Engineering Development (FEED) skills, capital and operating cost estimating capability, Engineering, Procurement, and Construction Management (EPCM)

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score0.352

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207