MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4238108656 · doi:10.2523/86600-ms

Improved Safety of Rig Automation with Remote Monitoring and Diagnostics

2004· article· en· W4238108656 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

VenueProceedings of SPE International Conference on Health, Safety, and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIndustrial Automation and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutomationSafety monitoringComputer scienceEngineeringMechanical engineeringBioinformatics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Improved Safety of Rig Automation with Remote Monitoring and Diagnostics Bryce Levett Bryce Levett Varco International Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Paper presented at the SPE International Conference on Health, Safety, and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, March 2004. Paper Number: SPE-86600-MS https://doi.org/10.2118/86600-MS Published: March 29 2004 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Get Permissions Search Site Citation Levett, Bryce. "Improved Safety of Rig Automation with Remote Monitoring and Diagnostics." Paper presented at the SPE International Conference on Health, Safety, and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, March 2004. doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/86600-MS Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex Search Dropdown Menu nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All ContentAll ProceedingsSociety of Petroleum Engineers (SPE)SPE International Conference and Exhibition on Health, Safety, Environment, and Sustainability Search Advanced Search AbstractRig automation has focused on improving safety with equipment designed to reduce manpower/human interaction and assume repetitive tasks and operations. As more parts of a drilling rig become automated, there has been a change in how rig personnel interact with equipment. A system of remote monitoring, diagnostics and technical support has been developed to make this interaction more seamless and expand the focus of rig automation. Case studies are presented in this paper of actual field conditions where the remote monitoring system eliminated hazardous operations, discovered operational 'bad habits', and identified areas requiring additional training. Use of the remote diagnostic system prevented the need for physical contact between human and machine in order to solve problems. Documented field incidents have shown benefits of increased safety in many areas when using remote monitoring and management compared to operations without.IntroductionRig automation (as pertains to discussion in this paper) is defined as equipment designed to automate repetitive tasks, reduce human intervention and error. These repetitive tasks are associated with pipe handling operations on the drill floor. Operations can include racking pipe in the derrick, bringing drill pipe to well center, make-up or breakout of connections and pick-up or lay-down of pipe from the derrick to a conveyer.One of the key drivers for the development of this rig automation has been improved safety. The reduction of human presence and physical interaction by humans has been a major goal behind the design of automated equipment. The equipment has evolved into complex robotic designs. Sophisticated sensor technology is employed to determine position relative to other equipment. The optimal path/movement necessary to complete an operation is determined with collision avoidance as a prime factor. Joysticks and touch screens are utilized as control interfaces, requiring only one person to operate the equipment.The sophistication of the control technology has simplified the interaction of the operator and the equipment, but has also added a degree of complexity to troubleshooting when something does not function quite right. Specialized personnel from the equipment manufacturing companies are sometimes dispatched to the rig to assist in troubleshooting. Data about a failed operation is often sparse and personnel have to rely on verbal data, which can be in error. Troubleshooting techniques may require the use of manual overrides to automated control sequences. Equipment can be fully functioned in this mode, however the collision avoidance systems are disabled or bypassed thereby increasing the risk of operation. Even during normal (non-troubleshooting) operations, manual override mode is available and if used can increase the risk of operation.The system discussed in this paper was developed and designed to remotely monitor drilling equipment. Using remote diagnostics, the system helps eliminate the need to dispatch specialized personnel (both onboard rig personnel and onshore specialists) and reduces the use of manual override during both operation and troubleshooting. Keywords: rig automation, artificial intelligence, monitoring, safety, operation, drilling equipment, manual override mode, controller, collision, upstream oil & gas Subjects: Drilling Equipment, Information Management and Systems This content is only available via PDF. 2004. Society of Petroleum Engineers You can access this article if you purchase or spend a download.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.419

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.208 · 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