Platform Drilling Life Cycle Assessment of Drilling Waste Handling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Different methods to handle oil wet drill cuttings in a field development offshore Canada has been evaluated. The governing requirement is an upper limitation of 6,9% oil on cuttings for discharge to sea when an environmentally acceptable base oil is chosen. Methods that ensure that cuttings remain below this are evaluated primarily with respect to their environmental impact on air, sea and sea bottom. The conclusions are derived from a study including literature review, interview of relevant industry experts, and evaluation of existing reported studies and relevant equipment. Relevant equipment in this sense means equipment with impact on solids control and handling that there exists experience data from in conditions that can be compared to those this location. Dispersion modelling of relevant scenarios is performed. The dispersion modelling findings represent a key part of the conclusion. Five scenarios are evaluated. These include: 1. Skip and ship for onshore cuttings treatment 2. Shaker solution and dryer for additional treatment 3. Shaker and dryer with additional dryer in series 4. Thermal Desorption Unit (TDU) with partial direct disposal to sea instead of storage units 5. TDU processing for all generated cuttings in synthetic-based drilling fluid In the paper it is shown how, based on the review of the five scenarios, the best option for drilling platform wells offshore Newfoundland is scenario 2, shaker and dryer. This gives low emission to air, comparable marine discharge as well as requiring the lowest footprint on a platform.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".