Nice
Abstract In 2008, during the SPE International Conference on Health, Safety and the Environment in Nice, France, BP p.l.c. (BP) presented "Managing Marine Mammal Issues: Corporate Policy, Stakeholder Engagement, Applied Research and Training." That paper recognized the need for oil and gas industry staff to develop a basic understanding of the potential effects of underwater sound on marine mammals and offered a short description of one of BP's approaches to familiarization training. Since 2008, stakeholder concerns and regulatory requirements have grown. Today, the oil and gas industry needs employees familiar with the issue as well as a smaller cadre of employees with substantial expertise. This is especially true in areas of relatively new exploration and development activity, such as southern Australia and northern Canada, and in mature areas faced with rapidly-changing regulatory requirements, such as the Gulf of Mexico. Recognizing the importance of this issue, BP has worked towards improving workforce competency through a variety of methods, including an intranet-based familiarization course, third-party courses, internal knowledge-sharing events, and mentoring. While each of these approaches plays an important role in workforce development, the need for an advanced training course focused specifically on industry needs and drawing from industry examples remains. This paper describes an example of an existing BP training program and advocates joint industry development of an advanced training course.
- North America > United States (0.89)
- North America > Canada (0.69)
- Europe > France > Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur > Alpes-Maritimes > Nice (0.25)
- South America > Brazil > Brazil > South Atlantic Ocean (0.89)
- Oceania > Australia > Queensland > Trinidad Field (0.89)
- North America > United States (0.89)
Management A computer-based survey was taken of the program committee members of five SPE International Health, Safety, and Environment (HSE) Conferences over the past 5 years. The committee members are experts in their fields and they were asked to express their opinions on the progress of the industry in HSE over the past 5 years and the effort that the industry should make over the next 5 years. The committee members were asked to complete a web-based questionnaire with the following questions:How would you rate the progress made by the industry in the following subjects over the past 5 years? (excellent, good, moderate, poor, very poor) How would you rate the effort that the industry should make in the next 5 years? (much more effort, more effort, same effort, less effort, much less effort) How would you rate the effort the regulators should make in the next 5 years? (much more effort, more effort, same effort, less effort, much less effort) How would you rate the effort that the nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) should make in the next 5 years? (much more effort, more effort, same effort, less effort, much less effort) The method of scoring and ranking is summarized in the appendix. A summary of the status of the industry programs is shown in Table 1 with the full results in Tables 2–4. Of the list of 20 questions, 16 were asked at all five conferences but 4 new questions were asked at the 2008 conference in Nice, France. The chart in Fig. 1 shows the scores for progress from the Nice (2008) conference. The seven issues in the first column of Table 1 are the highest-ranked items in the Progress list based on the results from Nice as shown in Table 2 and have been categorized as "good progress," while the six issues in the third column of Table 1 are the lowest-ranked issues from the Progress list and have been categorized as "needs more effort." The issues in the second column are those issues in between the other two categories and have been categorized as "maturing." The issues in the table are, therefore, in seriatim order for the progress scores and the numbers in the parentheses are the rank for the future effort score.
- Europe > United Kingdom > England (0.28)
- Europe > France > Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur > Alpes-Maritimes > Nice (0.25)
This article, written by Assistant Technology Editor Karen Bybee, contains highlights of paper SPE 111824, "Policy Options in the EU for Regulating Carbon Capture and Storage," by David J. Williamson and Paul Zakkour, Environmental Resources Management Ltd., originally prepared for the 2008 SPE International Conference on Health, Safety, and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, Nice, France, 15-17 April. The paper has not been peer reviewed. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) represents a potentially useful tool to enable the European Union (EU) to manage its emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) as it transitions from a fossil-fuel to a renewables energy strategy. The full-length paper examines the regulatory requirements for effective operation of CCS by identifying the issues and risks associated with the capture, transport, and storage of CO2, and reviews the regulatory options available and their applicability to the operation, management, and control of CCS. Introduction CCS is a widely recognized opportunity to enable EU member states to lower emissions of CO2 by the capture of carbon from large-scale emitters (e.g., power stations) and provide for the long-term, safe storage of this material in underground reservoirs. The EU has set targets for member states to reduce their total volume of CO2 emissions by 20% of 1990 levels by the year 2020. Achieving these targets in the time scales involved by reducing overall energy consumption or by transferring generation capacity to noncarbon-emitting alternatives is not a feasible option, and, therefore, alternatives must be sought. While the EU will seek to provide a legislative framework that will enable and encourage the development of the infrastructure required to operate CCS effectively across its sphere of influence, there are particular challenges to be faced in drafting policy and regulation related to the unique nature of the CCS process. Approach The CCS process must be described and reviewed to outline the various technical tasks that must be carried out to achieve the goals of the process. In this case, there are three main areas that must be reviewed:CO2 capture. CO2 transport. CO2 storage. Each of these parts of the process represents varying health, safety, and environmental (HSE) risk profiles. Each of these areas has regulatory analogs in which similar or related processes are subject to current EU and member-state regulation.
Copyright 2008, Society of Petroleum Engineers This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 SPE International Conference on Health, Safety, and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production held in Nice, France, 15-17 April 2008. 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.
ABSTRACT A wide study of the medium (roughly 20 m by 20 m by 20 m) sized superficial sandstone bedrock reservoir, namely Coaraze natural site, France, is planned. Laboratory and site experiments will be compared and the data set will be used for simulations with 3DEC/3Flow ITASCA code implemented with later models. A part of the laboratory experiments is presented here. The BCR3D (3D direct shear box) with its hydraulic Sectorized device, and its portable laser beam from 3S (Soil, Structure, Solide) Laboratory, France, is used. The interpretation of the rock matrix characterization tests, of the cyclic mechanical compression test, and the cyclic hydro mechanical compression tests show that the normal stiffness is stress dependent, the initial normal stiffness value, kno= 122 MPa/mm, dependent on the initial fitting of the two joint walls, and the maximum normal stiffness value, knimax= 164.3 MPa/m, is reached at δmax= 0.5 mm of normal displacement. INTRODUCTION This study is only the laboratory part of a wider one: model, laboratory and in situ experiments are planned at the Coaraze site, close to Nice, France. The site is a medium (roughly 20 m by 20 m by 20 m) sized superficial sandstone bedrock reservoir (Coaraze natural site, France); with fractures and bedding planes, Cappa et al. (2004). (Figure in full paper) The measurement of anisotropic hydro mechanical properties of natural or artificial fractures is possible at the laboratory 3S (Soils, Solids, Structures), using a prototype device called BCR3D (3D Direct Shear Box for Rock Joints). From the mechanical point of view, this machine is equipped with 5 electromechanical jacks, and is fully computer controlled (Figure 1 and Figure 2). Any history of shearing along two orthogonal directions of the joint, and of normal loading are possible. Any shear paths are possible (specially at constant normal stress and at prescribed normal stiffness). The (Figure in full paper) hydraulic anisotropic conductivity of a joint is investigated, during shearing or not, using a radial flow (a radial gradient) with a central pressurized input and 5 independent external outputs at atmospheric pressure (Figure 3). The maximum input pressure of the fluid is 20 MPa, and the maximum input flow is about I liter per minute. The morphology of the two rock walls can be measured by a laser beam (diameter: 0.25 rnrn, sampling step: 0.15 mm/128 × 128, vertical resolution: 0.0 I mm) at any stage of the loading, without unmounting the sample, only by opening the box. Measurements of the evolution of morphology are possible and performed for the actual study. The computations and interpretations of the evolution of the morphology are not presented here. The quality of the tests (very small relative rotations of the rock walls) is preserved by the kinetic choices: the shearing in one direction is realized by two symmetric movements of the rock walls, due to two opposite jacks (Figure I). Then the normal force is centered at any time on the active part of the joint.
- Geology > Geological Subdiscipline > Geomechanics (1.00)
- Geology > Rock Type > Sedimentary Rock > Clastic Rock > Sandstone (0.45)
Abstract The effects of ozonated seawater on the corrosion behavior of nickel-chromium-molybdenum alloys C-276, C-22, 625 and 59 (UNS N10276, N06022, N06625, and N06059) were studied and the results were compared with those obtained for aerated solutions. Corrosion rates and crevice corrosion information obtained from plate samples at intervals of 2, 4, 8, 16, 26, and 47 weeks were compared with electrochemical measurements of corrosion potential, linear polarization resistance (LPR), and cyclic polarization curves from concurrently immersed wire samples. It was observed that samples in ozonated seawater, in general, exhibited higher corrosion rates (5-34 µm/yr), as measured by both LPR and weight change measurements, than those exposed to aerated seawater. These relatively low corrosion rates were accompanied by the precipitation of voluminous amounts of black flocculent corrosion product in the ozonated solution, identified as hydrated nickel chlorates formed from dissolved nickel ions in solution. The only adherent corrosion product observed on samples in ozonated solutions is characterized by the presence of a thin oxide film exhibiting interference coloration, which varied from alloy to alloy, and with time of exposure. Creviced samples of alloy C-276 in ozonated seawater showed preferential corrosion at the interface between creviced and uncreviced surfaces, with the creviced surface being completely protected, in contrast to slight pitting damage observed in the crevice region of samples exposed to aerated seawater. Cyclic polarization curves of alloys C-276 and C-22 also suggest increased crevice corrosion susceptibility in ozonated seawater, as indicated by the presence of a hysteresis loop and an increase in the passive current density compared to those observed in aerated seawater. Alloy 690 (UNS N06690) showed severe crevice corrosion in ozonated atiificial seawater, indicating the importance of molybdenum as an alloying addition under ozonated conditions. INTRODUCTION In the early 1900s, ozone was first used to disinfect municipal drinking water in Nice, France. Since then, water treatment by ozonation has been favored over chlorination in Europe because of improved taste, odor control and disinfection. Today, due to the environmental hazards of chlorination byproducts, ozone is currently being used in many fresh water treatment applications in the United States, where only chlorine has been used in the past. These applications include the sterilization of drinking water, treatment of sewage and waste water, algae control in swimming pools, and biofouling control in cooling tower waters. Although most applications of ozone are in fresh waters, there is a growing number of applications for the use of ozone in seawater. Ozone has already been used successfully in several large aquaria for the treatment of biotoxins in recirculating seawater systems. It is also being investigated for use in preventing biofouling in desalination processes as well as in heat exchangers which use marine waters for cooling.Ozone is one of the strongest oxidizers used in water treatment. An earlier paper by Wyllie, Brown, and Duquette covers the details of the chemical reactions that occur in ozonated seawater. The reaction of ozone with the components of artificial seawater results in the formation of hypobromous acid.
- North America > United States > Texas (0.28)
- Europe > France > Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur > Alpes-Maritimes > Nice (0.24)