MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2897017004 · doi:10.2118/0718-0027-jpt

The UK North Sea: How To Manage an Aging Basin

2018· article· en· W2897017004 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stephen Whitfield

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Petroleum Technology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMarine and Offshore Engineering Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNuclear decommissioningProduction (economics)Abandonment (legal)Chevron (anatomy)BusinessNatural resource economicsEconomicsEngineeringPolitical scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The words “UK North Sea” do not engender much more than cautious optimism these days when talking about oil and gas production, with dropping production and high decommissioning costs dominating the conversation. The reality is more complicated. After 14 years straight of production declines, and particularly sharp production declines from 2010 to 2014, the UK continental shelf (UKCS) saw production increases from 2015 to 2017. While it is a mature basin in the midst of overall decline, the UKCS has shown potential. Production in recent years has been boosted by a number of large projects coming online such as BP’s Schiehallion and Chevron’s Rosebank. Future production numbers may see a boost from discoveries like BP’s Capercaillie and Achmelvich, and Hurricane Energy’s discoveries at Halifax and Lincoln in the West of Shetland area. Companies and government regulators also see opportunities. Whether those opportunities will lead to anything beyond a temporary reprieve remains a question. Even if the decline resumes next year, as some have forecast, managing the assets still active in a way that avoids double digit losses will be a challenge for all the stakeholders in the area. The Value of Infrastructure In discussing decommissioning and abandonment’s place in the North Sea conversation, Oil and Gas UK economics and market intelligence manager Adam Davey said he has seen little evidence of a massive pickup in activity, with more stories coming about operators trying to extend field life and defer decommissioning. However, the massive cost of decommissioning is still the most pressing issue facing companies operating in the region. The North Sea makes up the majority of global offshore decommissioning costs, and while the region is forecast to comprise a smaller share of the global total over the next 4 years, the overall costs of North Sea decommissioning should still rise from 2018 to 2021 (Fig. 1). Wood Mackenzie predicted that decommissioning spend will overtake capital expenditure by 2022. In the UK, decommissioning costs are expected to remain consistent at $2.3 to $2.7 billion annually over the next 5 years, compared to $532 million to $1 billion on the Norwegian continental shelf and $864 million to $1 billion on the Dutch continental shelf. Oil and Gas UK said it is an indication that there is no need to rush decommissioning efforts. While decommissioning activity on the UKCS is much greater than in the other sectors on the North Sea, the consultancy said this reflects the total amount of infrastructure in the basin, as well as the fact that an increasing number of mature assets are naturally reaching the end of their productive lives. Wood Mackenzie said it is not necessarily an indicator that the UKCS is entering a steep decline.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.765
Threshold uncertainty score0.410

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Petroleum TechnologySame topicMarine and Offshore Engineering StudiesFrench-language works237,207