|Theme||Visible||Selectable||Appearance||Zoom Range (now: 0)|
This roughly describes the rollercoaster ride in oil production that Russia is expected to see fully play out in the coming months, according to a new forecast from Rystad Energy. Despite showing a measurable degree of resilience since sanctions began hitting a few months ago, the Oslo-based market research group said this week that "the worst is yet to come" for the Russian oil industry. Rystad's analysis shows that Russia likely saw production drop by as much as 1 million B/D in April before making an almost complete rebound by July as crude output neared pre-war levels. Rystad said this "outstanding growth" was largely the result of increased refinery throughput as exports topped out at 5 million B/D April and May before retreating to 4.2 million B/D last month. These figures led Rystad to increase its outlook for Russia's average production this year by 200,000 B/D to 9.6 million B/D.
Francesca Watson is a researcher in the Computational Geosciences group at SINTEF Digital in Oslo. She has a PhD from Durham University, UK and specialises in reservoir simulation for CO2 storage. She has worked at SINTEF since 2018 where she has been involved in both software development and managing biannual releases of the MRST software.
Knut-Andreas Lie is chief scientist at SINTEF in Oslo. Over the last 20 years he has developed commercial and in-house software solutions for the international petroleum industry. He is a founding father of two pieces of open-source community software: Matlab Reservoir Simulation Toolkit and Open Porous Media. He is a Fellow of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, an elected member of the Norwegian Academy of Technological Sciences, and recently served 4 years as executive editor of SPE Journal.
Agarwal, Abhishek (TCS Research, Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.) | Rathore, Pradeep (TCS Research, Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.) | Kumar, Dharmendr (TCS Research, Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.) | Nistala, Harsha (TCS Research, Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.) | Sanjana, S (Indian Institute of Technology Hyderabad) | Jain, Vinay (TCS Research, Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.) | Rai, Beena (TCS Research, Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.)
Abstract Corrosion inhibitors are useful to mitigate corrosion of metal/alloy components. However, traditional corrosion inhibitors are toxic and need to be replaced by greener alternatives. Efficient screening models are required to find molecules with desired properties from millions of molecules available in public domain. To make these models, database of experimental inhibition efficiency of molecules is essential. In this work, we have developed a computational framework to accelerate the discovery of new corrosion inhibitors. We have used machine learning based algorithms to predict corrosion inhibition efficiency of organic molecules for steel in hydrochloric acid by using structural information of the molecules along with experimental conditions. Our multitask learning based neural network architecture was able to outperform traditional machine learning algorithms such as random forest, lasso and ridge regression. We have also created the largest dataset for predictive modelling of corrosion inhibitors for steel. Besides, we have also used the model to screen molecules from the ZINC15 dataset and found potential inhibitors with high inhibition efficiency. Introduction Corrosion of metallic structures is a ubiquitous problem in industries such as power generation, oil and gas, pulp and paper, metals processing etc. which also results in significant financial losses . According to the National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE) International report, the global cost of corrosion was ∼ 2.5 trillion USD in 2013 - close to 3.4 percent GDP of the entire world . The use of corrosion inhibitors is one of the most effective and economical ways to mitigate corrosion of metal and alloy components [3,4]. Corrosion inhibitors are substances that are added in small quantities in corrosive media to protect metal and alloy components from corrosion . Organic corrosion inhibitors are typically surfactant-type compounds comprising mainly of two parts: (a) a hydrophilic head group containing heteroatoms such as O, N and S and (b) a hydrophobic tail group comprising hydrocarbon groups [6-8]. These compounds form an effective barrier layer on the metal or alloy surface thereby stopping the transport of ions and corrosive species [3,9], thus, inhibiting corrosion. However, most of these inhibitors and their formulations are toxic in nature, and many organizations such as the OSPAR Commission (Oslo/Paris commission for protection of the marine environment of north-east Atlantic) have restricted their use . Therefore, there is a need to develop novel and effective corrosion inhibitors that meet environmental regulations.
The offshore oil and gas industry has always been cognizant of its impact on the marine environment. The choices that operators make in how they operate, including the disposal of drill cuttings, must address an increasing number of environmental and climate targets in addition to those related to health, safety, and cost. As a typical well will produce approximately 1000 metric tons of oil-based drill cuttings, quantifying greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions associated with the disposal and treatment of drill cuttings has become an essential step to achieving net-zero ambitions. Since 1991 (1993 for fields in production), strict regulations relating to the discharge of oil-based drill cuttings have been in force under the OSPAR (Oslo/Paris) Convention. Those regulations banned the practice of discharge to sea of untreated oil-based drill cuttings and led to a situation where they were generally shipped to shore for treatment and disposal. In 2020, TWMA engaged DNV, the independent energy expert and assurance provider, to undertake a comparative study between the company’s offshore thermal drill-cuttings treatment solution and conventional alternatives including “skip and ship,” bulk transfer, and cuttings reinjection (CRI) used on the Norwegian Continental Shelf (NCS). It is the first paper to show a direct emissions comparison between offshore processing and alternative methods implemented. The study assessed the carbon dioxide (CO2) footprint and nitrogen dioxide (NOx) emissions for each of the different alternatives. The values were then used to create an interactive emissions calculator that can easily be applied to specific projects to clarify the actual potential for emissions reduction within the drilling waste management process. Background Technological improvements, as well as cost focus on existing solutions, have meant that offshore thermal drill-cuttings treatment has been widely adopted in many offshore basins as one of the safest and most cost-effective approaches. In Norway, which was the subject of the study, adoption of the technology has been slower than in other countries, with onshore thermal treatment of oil-based cuttings applied as the predominant technique, while some fields use offshore slurrification and injection into dedicated disposal wells. However, the cost of drilling new disposal wells and the track record of successful offshore thermal projects in other countries have improved the frame conditions for the use of offshore thermal treatment of cuttings on the NCS. It has also been demonstrated, in an earlier independent comparative study by Carbon Zero (SPE 207519), that the carbon footprint of skip and ship to shore of drill cuttings is 53% higher than that of drill-cuttings treatment at the wellsite (SPE 202639).
The offshore oil and gas industry has always been cognizant of its impact on the marine environment. The choices that operators make in how they operate, including the disposal of drill cuttings, must address an increasing number of environmental and climate targets in addition to those related to health, safety, and cost. As a typical well will produce approximately 1000 metric tons of oil-based drill cuttings, quantifying greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions associated with the disposal and treatment of drill cuttings has become an essential step to achieving net-zero ambitions. Since 1991 (1993 for fields in production), strict regulations relating to the discharge of oil-based drill cuttings have been in force under the OSPAR (Oslo/Paris) Convention. Those regulations banned the practice of discharge to sea of untreated oil-based drill cuttings and led to a situation where they were generally shipped to shore for treatment and disposal.
Abstract The offshore industry has for many years been cognisant of its impact on the marine environment. Since 1991, strict regulations relating to oil-based drill cuttings discharge have been in force in the signature countries to the OSPAR (Oslo/Paris) Convention. As the impact of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on climate change has become better understood, global carbon dioxide (CO2) emission reduction targets and how to meet them have risen up operators’ agendas. Offshore operations, which involve marine logistics, are also subject to limits on nitrogen dioxide (NOx) emissions, an indirect GHG that's toxic to humans and contributes to soil and water acidification. The choices that operators make today in how they operate, including the disposal of drill cuttings, must therefore address an increasing number of environmental and climate targets, in addition to health, safety and cost. This paper will outline the results of a comparative study between the offshore processing of drill cuttings and relevant conventional alternatives, including skip and ship, bulk transfer and cuttings reinjection (CRI). It is the first paper to show a direct emissions comparison between offshore processing and all other alternative methods for drill cuttings processing. The study assessed the carbon footprint and NOx emissions for each of the different alternatives for the treatment of drill cuttings. The values were then used to create an interactive emissions calculator that can be easily applied to specific projects to clarify the actual potential for emissions reduction within the drilling waste management process. A number of case studies were then run, comparing the different alternatives. For the examples run, the comparative assessment showed that wellsite thermal processing technology was the favourable alternative in terms of emissions, with an emission reduction in the order of 14 - 48%, compared with the onshore alternatives. Emissions of the alternatives, skip and ship and bulk transfer, were highly dependent on sailing and road transport distances, as well as power source for the onshore treatment facility. The assessment showed that CRI has the highest emissions of CO2 per tonne of cuttings. Alternatives involving onshore treatment had the highest NOx emissions when sailing distance was high, however this was highly dependent on the machinery and fuel source of the transport vessel - and for the offshore alternatives, the on-site energy production solution.
The author outlines current decommissioning guidelines and typical practices and explores cost-effective ways by which companies can navigate this multifaceted process. The complete paper provides a case study that illuminates an optimal, cost-effective decommissioning methodology for offshore facilities and structures, which is closely aligned with emerging decommissioning guidelines and regulations and with industry best practices. Decommissioning of offshore facilities will become increasingly important in Southeast Asia. Therefore, the promulgation of standard practices jointly developed by regulators and operators are key to the best outcomes for the environment, affected communities, and owner/operator economics. Three well-known global conventions address broad guidance of decommissioning activities: International Marine Organization Resolution A.672, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and the Oslo-Paris Convention.
Reporting on the announcement of Norway's first offshore wind tender the week of 7 June, Reuters said, "Oslo will present details of the tender as part of a whitepaper on the energy sector." But the release of the whitepaper on 11 June put to rest any hope or concern that the Norwegian government was about to put all--or even most--of its "energy eggs" in the renewables "basket." "The government wants Norwegian energy resources to form the basis for more jobs and prosperity in society. Thus, the whitepaper has been titled Putting Energy to Work," said a press release. According to the government statement, Norway's position as an energy nation will be developed further through new initiatives encompassing hydrogen, offshore wind, strengthening the power grid, and a low-emissions oil and gas sector.
The full-scale carbon capture and underground storage (CCUS) project was estimated to be a bigger-ticket item than forecast earlier, according to an independent report published by the country's Ministry of Petroleum and Energy. The cost of building and operating the project over 10 years, 80% of which would be funded by the government, was pegged at up to $2.6 billion, about $827 million more than an earlier study forecast over 5 years of operation. Equinor, Total, and Shell announced last month their intent to fund the remaining 20% plus the transport of the carbon dioxide on ships and then piping it out to the North Sea for underground storage. The project was initially proposed to include two industrial sites as the sources for the carbon dioxide: Norcem Brevik cement factory (part of Germany's HeidelbergCement), south of Oslo, and Fortum Oyj's waste-to-energy plant in Oslo. The two consultancies that completed the study--Atkins Norge, part of the SNC-Lavalin Group, and Oslo Economics--recommended the inclusion of only the Brevik cement factory to lower the cost.