MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4241059401 · doi:10.2523/102441-ms

Technologies for Arctic Offshore Exploration & Development

2006· article· en· W4241059401 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dmitri Matskevitch

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPE Russian Oil and Gas Technical Conference and Exhibition · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOffshore Engineering and Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArcticCitationExhibitionPermafrostSubmarine pipelineThe arcticComputer sciencePetroleumEnvironmental scienceOperations researchOceanographyLibrary scienceEngineeringGeographyArchaeologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Technologies for Arctic Offshore Exploration & Development Dmitri Matskevitch Dmitri Matskevitch ExxonMobil Upstream Research Co. Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Paper presented at the SPE Russian Oil and Gas Technical Conference and Exhibition, Moscow, Russia, October 2006. Paper Number: SPE-102441-MS https://doi.org/10.2118/102441-MS Published: October 03 2006 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Get Permissions Search Site Citation Matskevitch, Dmitri. "Technologies for Arctic Offshore Exploration & Development." Paper presented at the SPE Russian Oil and Gas Technical Conference and Exhibition, Moscow, Russia, October 2006. doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/102441-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 Russian Petroleum Technology Conference Search Advanced Search AbstractExploration and development of hydrocarbon reserves in the Arctic seas are challenged by a harsh environment including presence of ice and icebergs, permafrost, low temperatures, and extended periods of darkness. Remoteness and ecological considerations make activities in the Arctic even more difficult. Advanced technologies, non-traditional technical solutions and flawless execution are required to make any major project in the Arctic a success.Understanding the difficulties associated with implementing an offshore project in the Arctic comes with experience. In ExxonMobil's case, this results from 40 years of Arctic field operations and associated research. This paper discusses the Arctic technologies developed to support ExxonMobil exploration and development activities in the Arctic seas.ExxonMobil's Arctic offshore activity started in 1966 with the installation of the ice-resistant Granite Point offshore platform, which is still producing oil in Cook Inlet, Alaska. Since then ExxonMobil has constructed and drilled from artificial islands in shallow arctic waters, drilled in iceberg prone regions off Greenland, Canada and Norway, designed and installed the first iceberg-resistant gravity-based platform on the Grand Banks, installed an ice-resistant production platform and the first in-ice SPM offshore loading facility offshore Sakhalin Island, and continued to develop methodology to provide rational design criteria for ice-resistant production platforms. Development of design criteria and the selection of the most reliable and cost-effective technical solutions for arctic offshore projects required data from numerous field expeditions, model tests programs, field measurements, and observations from existing offshore structures. These studies were carried out under the supervision of ExxonMobil research staff.Arctic marine transportation systems are also an important element for many offshore and near-shore projects in remote areas where the construction of export pipelines is prohibitively expensive. The "Manhattan" tanker trials in 1969–70 in the US and Canadian Arctic and the 2002 "Primorye" trials in the Tatar Strait have helped ExxonMobil develop safe and reliable technologies for hydrocarbon transportation in ice-infested waters.IntroductionThe oil and gas industry has relatively little experience with exploring and developing hydrocarbon resources in cold, ice-covered offshore areas. This is mainly because conventional offshore technologies developed by the industry over the years for the ice-free seas have a limited application in the Arctic seas. One can use conventional techniques to drill exploration and production wells or acquire seismic in Arctic seas during the summer-fall ice-free season. However, in many areas of interest such season is fairly short (two to three months or less). If the lease owners rely on conventional technologies only, the pace of Arctic offshore exploration and development will be extremely slow adversely affecting project economics. The ability to conduct year-around or nearly year-around operations in the Arctic is thus essential to overall project success. To do this effectively, new technologies had to be developed and tested. The present paper discusses some of the ExxonMobil Arctic technologies originally developed and used in the Beaufort Sea, technologies also applicable in similar environments elsewhere is the world, including Russia.Arctic offshore exploration in North AmericaOver the last 37 years, more than 200 exploration and delineation offshore wells have been drilled in the US and Canadian Arctic north of the Bering Strait. Five of these wells were drilled in the Chukchi Sea, about 90 in the Canadian Beaufort Sea and Mackenzie Delta, about 70 in the US Beaufort Sea near the Alaska coast (including 31 wells in Federal waters), and about 40 in the straits and channels between the Canadian High Arctic Islands. The first Arctic offshore wells in North America were drilled in 1969 from natural islands, and the peak of exploration activities occurred in the 1970's and 1980's, with only a few wells drilled after 1993. Good summaries of North America Arctic exploration activities up to the early 1990's are available in [1] and [2]. Keywords: strategic planning and management, subsea system, FPSO, Upstream Oil & Gas, platform, Norman Well, project management, tanker, operation, Beaufort Sea Subjects: Offshore Facilities and Subsea Systems, Strategic Planning and Management, Floating production systems, Exploration and appraisal strategies, Project management This content is only available via PDF. 2006. 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.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.642
Threshold uncertainty score0.580

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPE Russian Oil and Gas Technical Conference and ExhibitionSame topicOffshore Engineering and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207