Layer | Fill | Outline |
---|
Map layers
Theme | Visible | Selectable | Appearance | Zoom Range (now: 0) |
---|
Fill | Stroke |
---|---|
Collaborating Authors
SPE Arctic and Extreme Environments Technical Conference and Exhibition
Abstract The context of the Oil Spill Inconvenience of the existing oil spill recovery solutions Problems that we face during the recovery operation 5 important recommendations The Technology The Arctic solution Despite the significant methods employed, very few- if any- hydrocarbons are recovered at sea. The existing solutions are not capable to recover Oil Spill at difficult weather conditions, rapidly and efficiently, especially in the Arctic. This paper will talk about the patented innovative technology to fight Oil Spill at sea and especially in Artic extreme environments. First of all we will go through the main disadvantages of the existing solutions to fight oil spill pollution. We will see images and drawings that will explain us the reason of its bad functioning. Then we will put in advance few very important points which must be considered while choosing the solution of oil spill response at sea. And finally we will see in details the technology that permits to recover oil spill at any sea without creating emulsion.
Abstract Once oil has been spilled, urgent decisions need to be made concerning response options, so that environmental impacts are kept to the minimum. Options for protection of shorelines include containment and recovery, in-situ burning, use of dispersants or just leaving the oil to dissipate and degrade naturally. All response options have both limitations and benefits which need to be compared with each other. This process is known as Net Environmental Benefit Analysis (NEBA). A NEBA for protection of coastal areas in the Russian part of the Barents Sea and the White Sea was performed by Ramboll in the framework of the UNEP/GEF project "Improvement of the emergency oil spill response system under the Arctic conditions for protection of sensitive coastal areas (case study: the Barents and the White seas)". The analysis was based on the results from modeling of spills of oil and oil products which are transported through the Barents and the White seas, oil spill sensitivity mapping as well as assessment of available oil spill response (OSR) resources in the region. The analysis shows that coastline protection methods such as using dispersants or in-situ burning lack methodological and regulatory framework and at the moment they cannot be used in the Russian part of the Barents Sea and the White Sea. The optimal available technique in case of a spill of fuel oil or crude oil will be mechanical containment and recovery (use of booms and skimmers). However, mechanical methods will be both inefficient and extremely hazardous to combat spills of gas condensate or naphtha due to high explosion and fire risk until full evaporation of the volatile fractions has taken place. In such a case it is recommended to observe the slicks and await natural dissipation. Challenging logistics in the region and harsh climatic conditions can significantly impede timely response to offshore oil spills and use of traditional mechanical recovery that creates need for adapting alternative tactics such as in-situ burning and dispersants.
- North America > United States > Texas > Fort Worth Basin > White Field (0.89)
- Europe > Russia > Barents Sea > East Barents Sea Basin > Ledovoye Field (0.89)
- Europe > Norway > Barents Sea (0.89)
Microbial Utilization Of The Oil Wastes In The Conditions Of Arctic Temperature
Vinogradova, E. N. (Faculty of Biology, Moscow State University) | Abramov, S. M. (Faculty of Biology, Moscow State University) | Sadraddinova, E. R. (Faculty of Biology, Moscow State University) | Fedorenko, V. N. (Faculty of Biology, Moscow State University) | Shestakov, A. I. (Faculty of Biology, Moscow State University)
Abstract This work is dedicated to the search and analysis of the microbial communities able to perform quick and effective biodestruction of the aqueous oily wastes. We developed a method for estimation of efficiency of existing preparations and for qualitative evaluation of the degree of carbon compounds degradation. This method will be the basis of the technology of oily decontamination of water and forelands in the arctic conditions. The experiments wede done in the conditions very close to the arctic (on the White Sea Biological Station and in a laboratory setting. We have isolated several microbial communities that are able to perform the destruction oil carbohydrates. On the basis of these communities, we plan to create the preparations highly effective in the arctic conditions. Utilization of oily wastes in the low temperatures conditions is of great actuality when developing oil fields in the far north. In the moderate climate regions, oil residuals (after the physical and/or physic-chemical purification) are utilized by soil microorganisms or using several commercially available microbial preparations that accelerate the process. The active components of such preparations are usually carbohydrate-oxidizing microorganisms that are able to perform oil conversion into the bacterial biomass of organisms that, in turn, transfer the oily wastes into the safe components. These biopreparations are actively used after the physical and/or physic-chemical remediation. Microbial bioremedation allows effective utilization of residual oily wastes, if using of other methods is economically unadvizable, technically complicated and/or ecologically unsafe. At the same time, the end-product of microbial conversion of oily wastes is the biomass of carbohydrate-oxidizing bacteria which serves as a feed for the other organisms of this geobiocoenosis. The literature search has shown that nowadays many preparations are developed that are aimed to the control of the oily wastes. These preparations are masses of viable microorganisms-biodestructors and differ one from another by strains used for their creation. These strains are characterized by different physiological and biochemical properties, such as thermotolerance, osmophility, optimal pH, ability to utilize different classes of carbohydrates and n-alkanes in their metabolic processes. These properties of the strains- biodestructors determine the efficiency of their using in different climatic zones in order to control chemically different wastes. Generally, all existing preparations are intended for the destruction of the oily wastes of not only soil, but also fresh-water basins, areas of seas, factory runoffs and contaminated inner surfaces of process reservoirs and tanks.
- Health & Medicine (1.00)
- Energy > Oil & Gas > Upstream (1.00)
Abstract One of the most important tasks of research on the shelf is the evaluation of the sustainability of marine facilities within the subaqueous engineering-geological structures [32]. Among the geological hazards that may pose a threat of loss of stability of shelf platforms, pipelines and other objects underwater production are landslides, gravity flows, mud volcanic eruptions, liquefaction of soil under dynamic loads, etc. In order to prevent damage subaqueous techno sphere must perform assessment of geological hazards and to present the main results of this assessment in the form of predictive engineering-geological maps (maps of the geological hazard). [31] To date, most of the developed approach the forecast regionalization of the territory by the degree of geological hazards are: method of estimating the parameters determining the intensity and destructive power of geological processes in the study area (areal damaging areas, frequency, speed the development process, etc.); assessment in concordance with natural and man-made factors-framwork influencing on the development of the processes of with segregation of some taxon on a score system; a method for prediction of geodynamic mapping (calculation of the geodynamic potential) on the direct manifestation of the processes and quantitative assessment the weight of factors affecting on the geohazards; expert assessment of the hazards of geological processes, phenomena and geological objects to the buildings and structures. The basic principles of mapping marine geological hazards along the route of the pipeline "Dzhubga-Lazarevskoye-Sochi" (DLS) (commissioned in 2011) is expert assessment.
- Geology > Sedimentary Geology > Depositional Environment (1.00)
- Geology > Rock Type > Sedimentary Rock > Clastic Rock (0.93)
- Geology > Geological Subdiscipline > Volcanology (0.68)
- Energy > Oil & Gas > Upstream (1.00)
- Energy > Oil & Gas > Midstream (1.00)
- Government > Regional Government > Europe Government > Russia Government (0.46)
- Government > Regional Government > Asia Government > Russia Government (0.46)
- Reservoir Description and Dynamics > Reservoir Characterization > Seismic processing and interpretation (1.00)
- Facilities Design, Construction and Operation > Pipelines, Flowlines and Risers (1.00)
- Health, Safety, Environment & Sustainability (0.88)
- Reservoir Description and Dynamics > Reservoir Characterization > Exploration, development, structural geology (0.68)
Copyright 2013, Society of Petroleum Engineers This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Arctic and Extreme Environments Conference & Exhibition held in Moscow, Russia, 15-17 October 2013. This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited.
- Asia > Russia (0.88)
- Europe > Russia > Central Federal District > Moscow Oblast > Moscow (0.25)
- Geology > Sedimentary Basin (0.43)
- Geology > Structural Geology > Tectonics > Plate Tectonics > Earthquake (0.30)
- Europe > Russia > Barents Sea > East Barents Sea Basin > Shtokmanovskoye Field (0.99)
- North America > Canada > Quebec > Arctic Platform (0.98)
- North America > Canada > Nunavut > Arctic Platform (0.98)
- (10 more...)
Coastal Dynamics Monitoring at the Barents and Kara Seas
Vergun, Alexey (Lomonosov Moscow State University, Zubov State Oceanoghraphy Institute) | Baranskaya, Alisa (Lomonosov Moscow State University, Zubov State Oceanoghraphy Institute) | Belova, Nataliya (Lomonosov Moscow State University, Zubov State Oceanoghraphy Institute) | Kamalov, Anatoly (Lomonosov Moscow State University, Zubov State Oceanoghraphy Institute) | Kokin, Osip (Lomonosov Moscow State University, Zubov State Oceanoghraphy Institute) | Kuznetsov, Dmitry (Lomonosov Moscow State University, Zubov State Oceanoghraphy Institute) | Shabanova, Nataliya (Lomonosov Moscow State University, Zubov State Oceanoghraphy Institute) | Ogorodov, Stanislav (Lomonosov Moscow State University, Zubov State Oceanoghraphy Institute)
Copyright 2013, Society of Petroleum Engineers This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Arctic and Extreme Environments Conference & Exhibition held in Moscow, Russia, 15-17 October 2013. This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright. Abstract Coastal dynamics monitoring on the key areas of oil and gas development at the Barents and Kara Seas has been carried out by Laboratory of Geoecology of the North at the Faculty of Geography (Lomonosov Moscow State University) together with Zubov State Oceanographic Institute (Russian Federal Service for Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring) for more than 30 years.
- Europe > Russia > Barents Sea > East Barents Sea Basin > Ledovoye Field (0.89)
- Asia > Russia > Kara Sea > West Siberian Basin > South Kara/Yamal Basin > Leningrad Field (0.89)
Abstract In the process of well construction in difficult drilling conditions and in the Arctic, the technologies that let us forecast formation heterogeneity and possible zones of complications and drilling hazards at early stages of field development become especially relevant. It has been found that a considerable number of drilling hazards and complications with drill bit failures and mud losses is associated with abnormal reservoir leyers. Anomaly show as alternation of hard and soft rocks; as a result in productive area we can observe both super-reservoir layers with up to 40–50% porosity and up to 1 m thickness, and abnormal consolidated and abrasive zones. Rock density in super-reservoir layer may decrease by 35–40% and increase to the same extent in the precipitation zone, which inevitably affects the strength and filtration properties of rocks. Based on the results of core and thin section analysis of 6 major fields of Volga-Urals oil and gas province, innovative catagenetic model of oil and gas deposit was built which can be used for any field. There is a clear relationship between catagenetic heterogeneity and zones of ancient oil-water and gas-fluid contacts, which allow us to develop a method for forecasting of drilling hazardous layers based on core data on one drilled well. Generation of catagenetic reservoir model for a new field will enable us at the exploration and planning stage to identify zones of possible complications and use appropriate technical and technological decisions for trouble-free drilling of new wells. Testing of the method made it possible to increase the life cycle of the drill bits due to reduction of their abrasive wear, select proper measures to minimize mud losses, save time and money for elimination of accidents related to drill bits. Regularities emerged in location of abnormal layers, their relationship with catagenetic processes was established, and a method was developed for forecasting possible complication zones based on core data on one well. To eliminate hazards in well drilling, we suggest using a model forecasting real depth of occurrence of hazardous layers. This can help implement deep and ultra-deep well drilling program, incorporating technical solutions aimed at prevention of complications.
- Geology > Mineral (1.00)
- Geology > Geological Subdiscipline (1.00)
- Geology > Rock Type > Sedimentary Rock (0.69)
- Europe > Russia > Volga Federal District > Orenburg Oblast > Precaspian Basin > Orenburg Field (0.99)
- Asia > Kazakhstan > West Kazakhstan > Uralsk Region > Precaspian Basin > Karachaganak Field (0.99)
Abstract Cone penetration testing (CPT) is one of the principal methods for the offshore geotechnical investigations worldwide and can rival drilling and coring in scope of field work. But, in the same time, CPT is not that widespread in Russian practice of the offshore geotechnical researches. Experience of execution of quite large amount of the offshore CPT in seabed mode is described in this article. Distinctive feature of the conducted field investigation is execution of the testing with heavy CPT rig from the vessel of opportunity. Aspects of vessel mobilization and field operations workflow considered in this article. Description of the data processing and interpretation is given. Typical geological cross section for investigated area is shown. Stratification of the soil profile was done using soil behavior types diagrams. Layers of soil are defined and characterized based on CPT data. Emphasis is given to determination of undrained shear strength based on cone resistance data. Correlation is found between undrained shear strength measured in onboard laboratory with shear vane and in-situ measured cone resistance. Achieved results were compared to materials of other studies on same subject and recommendations of the Russian regulatory document. Generally good correlation was found. Described approach to the offshore geotechnical investigation and technical solutions can be utilized for Arctic oil and gas fields development, where data for stratification and properties of soils are required. Derived correlations between undrained shear strength and cone resistance can be used for interpretation of CPT data of the future projects in Arctic regions.
Abstract Drilling and producing in high latitude environments is unforgiving. Temperatures often drop below –20°C and can reach as low as –50°C. Isolated locations or vast distances, extreme weather conditions and periods of deep darkness can restrict transportation of personnel and equipment. As a result, job complexity often leads to outright failure or an exponential increase in time to accomplish what would be a routine task in a normal environment. Often the best route to success and efficiency in these conditions is proven technologies and strategies. For over 80 years, e-line conveyance and tools have been refined and improved to become a very reliable means of data gathering and workovers, such as plug setting, debris removal, hardware milling, pipe recovery and so forth. Modern electric line (e-line) capabilities can now accomplish what conventionally would have been rig- or coiled tubing-based workovers. In the North Sea, Canada, Alaska and Russia operators use e-line to perform ‘heavy’ workovers; explosion-free cutting of tubulars, scale and debris removal, milling through hardware such as nipples, failed isolation valves and flapper valves, and replacement of hardware, such as gas lift valves and Electric Submersible Pumps (ESP’s) in extended reach horizontals. This paper discusses the benefits e-line tools can bring to accomplish ‘heavy’ workovers in a reliable manner in high latitude environments. Several case studies are presented to demonstrate these applications in practice.
- Europe > United Kingdom > North Sea (0.34)
- North America > United States > Alaska (0.25)
- Europe > Norway > North Sea (0.25)
- (2 more...)
- Energy > Oil & Gas > Upstream (1.00)
- Government > Regional Government > North America Government > United States Government (0.68)
- North America > United States > Alaska (0.89)
- North America > Canada (0.89)
- Europe > United Kingdom > North Sea (0.89)
- (4 more...)
Abstract The last decade has seen an unprecedented and continuously growing interest to explore offshore Arctic. Major international energy companies are now mobilizing their resources, improving competence and knowledge, developing technology and internal regulations to prepare for a long lasting and challenging journey. This paper is intended to provide a review and comparison of the most stringent international standards and regulations relevant for the Arctic region including but not limited to as follows: American Petroleum Institute (API) International Organization for Standardization (ISO) U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (U.S. CFR) Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) UK Health and Safety Executive (UK HSE) Norsk Sokkels Konkurranseposisjon (NORSOK) Norwegian Petroleum Safety Authority (PSA) Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD) Each entity has its strong sides that are usually based on previous industry experience and accidents resulted in substantial downtime, harm to environment, equipment and not least the personnel. At the same time simultaneous compliance to divergent standards might compromise overall safety. Bearing in mind extreme environmental sensitivity of the Arctic region, scale of impact and possible environmental consequences, there is literally no room for failure. Differences in safety philosophy and approach to well barrier elements to ensure well control and well integrity need to be thoroughly reviewed. Understanding these issues will improve safety in drilling operations, reduce cost of the exploration and mitigate potential operational and project risks. Deepwater Gulf of Mexico operating area and Norwegian Continental Shelf examples will be used. A case study of a typical well abandonment operation in deepwater Gulf of Mexico with simultaneous compliance to both U.S. 30 CFR 250 and NORSOK will be presented.
- North America > United States (1.00)
- Europe > Norway (1.00)
- Government > Regional Government > North America Government > United States Government (1.00)
- Energy > Oil & Gas > Upstream (1.00)
- North America > Cuba > Gulf of Mexico (0.89)
- Europe > Norway > Barents Sea (0.89)