A critical review of life cycle assessment and environmental impact of the well drilling process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a robust tool for evaluating the environmental impacts of products, processes, and systems throughout their entire life cycle. This article presents a comprehensive investigation into the potential of LCA in drilling methods. The growing emphasis on sustainable and environmentally responsible drilling practices is becoming a critical concern in the drilling industry. As demand for natural resources continues to rise, the need for accurate assessments of the environmental impacts associated with various drilling methods becomes increasingly essential. LCA offers a holistic perspective on all key stages of the drilling industry, providing reliable data and serving as a valuable resource for informed decision‐making aimed at promoting sustainable and optimized drilling techniques. This article delves into the challenges and complexities surrounding LCA evaluations in the context of drilling operations. It underscores the importance of LCA in enhancing the management of drilling cuttings, waste, and surplus materials generated during drilling activities, as well as the effective handling of drilling mud. Additionally, it highlights the critical issue of groundwater contamination resulting from drilling operations. By presenting a holistic view of the life cycle of drilling products and processes, the article offers practical insights into improving and optimizing drilling techniques and waste management strategies. Moreover, the article examines the challenges and potential solutions associated with implementing LCA in these areas. It aims to support responsible and informed decision‐making, ultimately leading to improved drilling performance and enhanced environmental management.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".