MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221089449 · doi:10.2118/208979-ms

Powering Offshore Installations with Wind Energy

2022· article· en· W4221089449 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Blair MacDougall, Phil Nash, Bruce A. Doyle, Joshua Hudson, Rick Murphy, Justin L. Meyers

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOffshore Engineering and Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOffshore wind powerRenewable energySubmarine pipelineTurbineMarine engineeringWind powerFossil fuelEngineeringBackupEnvironmental scienceGreenhouse gasAutomotive engineeringPetroleum engineeringWaste managementElectrical engineeringMechanical engineeringOceanographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The offshore Oil and Gas industry continues to explore and develop oil and gas fields using installations powered by generators burning either natural gas or marine gas oil (MGO), similar to diesel. There is increasing pressure on the industry to explore and produce hydrocarbons responsibly, cost effectively and with the lowest emissions. By employing renewable sources of power, Waterford Energy Services Inc.'s (WESI) methodology provides a possible solution using Floating Offshore Wind Turbine (FOWT) to power offshore installations. Various methods are being proposed and developed to maintain production while bringing down overall greenhouse gas emissions (e.g. CO2, NOx, SOx). This paper outlines the methodology used for a conceptual design of a "Plug and Play" hybrid power solution in the Canadian Offshore Oil and Gas Industry. FOWTs are electrically connected to offshore installations such as Mobile Offshore Drilling Units (MODU), Floating Production Storage and Offloading (FPSO) and fixed production platforms in a harsh environment to replace large portions of the onboard power generation. Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) are incorporated to transition from wind power, increase efficiency, provide safety backup and enhance emissions reduction. The plan includes considerations for the optimal electrical and battery storage topology and the electrical equipment necessary to connect the FOWT Array to the offshore facility. For the purposes of this paper, a representative location was chosen offshore Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada to assess both local conditions and design requirements. WESI has evaluated additional global locations for this FOWT solution. The conceptual design considers the wind turbine power output and examines the components required to deliver the power to the installation's electrical system (e.g. transformers, batteries, switchgear, static and dynamic cables, disconnects, communications/monitoring and required safety systems). Although there have been incremental improvements in emissions via advancements in fuel standards and engine exhaust abatement modifications, the only approach to have a significant step-change improvement in emissions is through replacement of onboard power generation with renewable sources. It anticipated that the installations’ greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions can be reduced in excess of 70% by combining wind power and battery supplementation. Oil and Gas operations are ideal applications of this decarbonization approach, presenting an opportunity to mature FOWT technology which can readily adapt to other grid isolated applications such as Remote Communities, Aquaculture and near-shore Industries.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.769
Threshold uncertainty score0.345

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.150
Teacher spread0.147 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOffshore Engineering and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207