bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
The Advanced Risk Management System: Arms
Authors: Seridji Abder , Pathe-Cornell E.M. , Regan Peter 
Published: October 2008

ABSTRACT
ARMS is a decision support system built to help operational managers hand/e hazardous situations onboard offshore production platforms. It provides the platform operators with an estimation of the risk level at any given time, and of expected changes in the risk level within a specified time window. It also provides guidance for rational risk management decisions within that time window.

DECISION SUPPORT FOR REAL-TIME RISK MANAGEMENT*
The 1988 Piper Alpha disaster, in which 167 men died(165 of 226 onboard and 2 rescue workers) from an explosion and subsequent fire in the North Sea, heightened risk awareness in the offshore industry. The Piper Alpha disaster provided a deep motivation for systematic risk analysis and risk management [1, 2,3, 4].
Risk management involves not only the financial aspects of insurance but also the choice of risk reduction measures, both technical and managerial. In this form, it is one of the best practices for improving the safety of operations onboard offshore oil production platforms. Such a function requires a systematic risk assessment which provides a means to examine and discuss the risk elements in day-to-day activities.
The objective of our Advanced Risk Management System -ARMS [5]- is to facilitate the risk management on site. It allows experienced managers and supervisors to understand the hazards and to control risk more quickly, more thoroughly, and at a lower cost than classical approaches. ARMS analyzes the effect on the risk of three major elements [6]:The offshore organization that runs the platform and its links with the onshore departments.The production activities on the deck (including supervision and control).Basic information from different sources about the facility and its critical components.
The objectives of the system require :Improvement of factual information in order to gather the relevant evidence and present the facts that matter in a synthetic and useful way.Safety supervision of the work process on board : this function requires helping the user identify and overcome incompatible activities within a task and between tasks that are planned to take place at the same time.Risk assessment for potentially hazardous situations and computation of the future risk level for any task within different time windows given the work plan.Decision support and presentation of appropriate recommendations : this function requires judging the acceptability of various risk levels and generating a set of possible risk reduction alternatives. The system must then be equipped to allow reasonable tradeoffs between safety and production. It must also be able to support decisions to gather additional information within short delays so as to prevent the worsening of critical problems.
Therefore, the challenge is to use the available risk information and to generate new information as required to support management decisions. This includes ranking and balancing risks during day-to-day operation of a platform.
The Gulf Of Mexico Air Quality Study: An Industry Perspective
Authors: Shannon B.E. 
Published: October 2008

ABSTRACT
Section 328 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 required the EPA to promulgate a rule establishing air pollution control requirements for Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) sources. Congress exempted Gulf of Mexico OCS sources west of 87.5 degrees longitude (near the border of Alabama and Florida) pending the results of a "three year" study conducted by the Department of Interior (DOI) - Minerals Management Service (MMS). The study required an examination of the impacts of emissions from OCS activities in such areas that fail to meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAA 0S) for either ozone or nitrogen dioxide. This paper reviews the MMS Gulf of Mexico Air Quality Study's (GMA OS) emission inventory development, historical ozone episode modeling, field sampling, and preliminary photochemical modeling results. Industry has developed a standardized spreadsheet to calculate emissions and a software package to allow operators to figure out the cost to control OCS sources for NOX and VOCS under the EPA's OCS Air Regulations (40 CFR Part 55). Cost estimates are provided for various regulatory scenarios currently being reviewed by the EPA and MMS.

CONGRESSIONAL MANDATE
Oil and gas exploration and production operations conducted on the OCS are regulated by the MMS, U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Department of Transportation (DOT). Air emission from OCS sources have historically been regulated by MMS until passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA)1. Title Ill, Section 328 of the CAAA - Air Pollution from OCS Activities (42 U.S.C. 7627), mandated that EPA develop regulations to control air pollution from OCS sources located offshore the States along the Pacific, Arctic and Atlantic Coasts, and along the United States Gulf Coast off the State of Florida eastward of longitude 87 degrees and 30 minutes. These regulations have been codified at 40 CFR Part 55- Outer Continental Shelf Air Regulations2. For portions of the United States Gulf Coast OCS that are adjacent to the States of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, 40 CFR Part 55 does not apply and air pollution regulatory authority remains with MMS3. This congressional exemption, for the central and western Gulf of Mexico, from EPA OCS air regulations was passed pending a MMS research study which will examine the impacts of emissions from OCS activities in such areas that fail to meet the NAAQS for either ozone (O3) or nitrogen dioxide (NOx).
Since Los Angeles, California is the only NOx non-attainment area in the United States the GMAQS will focus on O3 non-attainment areas along the Gulf Coast. The primary and secondary standard for O3 is 0.120 parts per million (ppm) (or 120 parts per billion (ppb))4. An area is designated as non-attainment when one maximum hourly average O3 concentration is above 120 ppb. For the GMAQS these areas include Houston, Texas and its surrounding counties; Beaumont - Port Arthur, Texas; Baton Rouge and Lake Charles, Louisiana, with their surrounding parishes.
Portable, Accurate Toxicity Testing
Authors: Sabaté R.W. , Stiffey A.V. , Dewailly E.L. , Hinds A.A. , Vieaux G.J. 
Published: October 2008

ABSTRACT
Ever tightening environmental regulations, severe penalties for non-compliance, and expensive remediation costs have stimulated development of methods to detect and measure toxins. Most of these methods are bioassays that must be performed in the laboratory; none previously devised has been truly portable. The U.S. Army, through the Small Business Innovative Research program, has developed a hand-held, field deployable unit for testing toxicity of battlefield water supplies. This patented system employs the measurable quenching, in the presence of toxins, of the natural bioluminescence produced by the marine dinoflagellate algaPyrocystis lunula.
The procedure's inventor used it for years to measure toxicity concentrations of chemical warfare agents - actually, their simulants, primarily in the form of pesticides and herbicides - plus assorted toxic reagents, waterbottom samples, drilling fluids, even blood. While the procedure is more precise, cheaper, and faster than most bioassays, until recently it was immobile. Now it is deployable in the field.
The laboratory apparatus has been proven to be sensitive to toxins in concentrations as low as a few parts per billion, repeatable within a variation of 10% or less, and - unlike some other bioassays - effective in turbid or colored media. The laboratory apparatus and the hand-held tester have been calibrated with the EPA protocol that uses the shrimplike Mysidopsis bahia. The test organism tolerates transportation well, but must be rested a few hours at the test site for regeneration of its light producing powers. Development of a freeze-dried reagent, now under way, will make the portable tester even more convenient to use.
Toxicity now can be measured confidently in soils, water columns, discharge points, and many other media in situ. Most significant to the oil industry is that drilling fluids can be monitored continuously on the rig.

BACKGROUND
A quick, precise, novel bioassay that uses the natural bioluminescence of the microscopic marine dinoflagellate Pyrocystis lunula was developed by a U.S. Navy scientist to detect and measure toxicity of, among other substances, chemical warfare agents. This work was conducted with CWA simulants, mostly in the form of commercial herbicides and pesticides. The inventor and associates disclosed the novel method to the scientific community in a 1985 report on the photometer used in the procedure (1) and in a 1986 paper on the detection of trichothecenes (2). The trichothecenes paper described a perfect qualitative correlation (Fig. 1) of the novel test with the Environmental Protection Agency protocol (3) that uses the tiny, shrimplike Mysidopsis bahia for testing drilling fluids toxicity. The novel method was announced to the petroleum industry as a development study in a 1990 Offshore Technology Conference paper (4). This work led to five Navy patents (5), to which a private environmental company has acquired exclusive marketing licenses under the government's technology transfer program..
The Spool Tree: First Application Of A New Subsea Wellhead/Tree Configuration
Authors: Lopez R.H. , Mansell Michael , Stewart A.A. 
Published: October 2008

ABSTRACT
The subsea SpoolTree system (also known as "Horizontal" or "Valveless" tree) features a spool with a wellhead connector below and a wellhead connector profile on top; the tubing hanger is hung off inside the spool; the valves are situated on the side of the spool and there are no valves in the vertical bore of the wellhead/tree system. This configuration requires the well completion to be run after the tree has been installed but it enables the completion to be pulled without the tree being removed. The running tools and accessories required for the SpoolTree are simpler than for a conventional system. A description of the concept as applied for the first time in the Gryphon Field is provided.
The novelty of the concept lies in the configuration of the equipment, not in the technology employed The system offered cost and delivery time advantages, but of prime concern was the safety implication of using this novel equipment, and a comprehensive safety evaluation was carried out.
The safety features of the Gryphon SpoolTree system are described and all 7 safety studies investigating the System from various angles are summarized.
The final section addresses future potential applications of the Concept.

BACKGROUND
When the decision on the Gryphon Field development configuration was taken, around the middle of 1992, it required that the wells would be completed subsea and linked to a FPSO moored nearby (Ref. 1). There would be four different types of well:oil producew,water injectors;an aquifer water supply well;a dual-purpose gas (injection/production) well.
At the time, the option of using pump-assisted dumpflood ('pumpflood') wells to replace the water supply well and the injectors (see Ref.2) was still under consideration. The consequence for the subsea trees would be that types (ii) and (iii) above would be replaced by a tree allowing full-bore access to a 7" completion, designed for facilitating wireline access for the running/retrieval of 7" nominal hydraulic downhole pumps.
At the time of initial enquiry, requirements common to all subsea trees were formulated as follows:The project schedule allowed 9 months from committal date to deliver of the first trees.Simplicity and proven technology should be employed where possible to safeguard the schedule requirements.Safety levels should be at least as good as existing designs.Cost reductions (compared to existing hardware) must be sought.Pressure and temperature levels are not excessive, and standard 5000 psi equipment would be adequate.18 3/4 " wellheads with standard casing configuration would be used, though certain casing strings may be omitted in certain wells.Valves would be operated by direct hydraulic control, both by the Workover Control system as well as by the Production Control System.
Marginal Field Development In Mature Areas Of The North Sea
Authors: Coker J.W.A. 
Published: October 2008

ABSTRACT
In the North Sea a comprehensive infrastructure of production, installations and pipelines have been installed in the last 20 years. As the existing oil and gas fields start to decline, it is cost effective to use the spare capacity on these existing production installations for marginal fields. To ensure economy in the marginal field development the facilities on the outlying fields must be reduced to a minimum. The facilities needed are very dependant on the product being processed and the distance to the existing production installation. However, experience has shown that the modifications necessary on the existing installations can be extensive, difficult to estimate and normally has had significant cost escalation.
This paper will outline the North Sea infrastructure, indicate the types of minimum facilities and installations used on the satellite fields, and briefly discuss the problems with modifications on existing installations.

EXISTING INSTALLATIONS IN THE NORWEGIAN NORTH SEA
The major production installations in the Norwegian North Sea are grouped in five areas;Ekofisk area (Southern North Sea)Sleipner area (Southern North Sea)Frigg area (Mid North Sea)Oseberg (Mid North Sea)Statfjord/Gullfaks area (Northern North Sea).
Most of these areas are connected to a gas pipeline system which either exports to the Continent or Great Britain, Very little gas is used in Norway and therefore nearly 100% is exported. There have been built or are under planning three large diameter pipeline systems to the Continent and two pipelines to Great Britain, the total capacity is over 200 MSm3/Day. Because of the long distance to the Continent the southern pipeline systems used are dry gas systems and therefore the gas can be delivered to the market without further processing. The Frigg systems is a semi dry system with limited processing on land. However, the system from Statfjord/Gullfaks is a wet system, the gas being processed on land in Norway before transfer to the southern gas systems. This gas infrastructure has dictated the process systems required on the platforms located in the different areas.
In the Ekofisk/Sleipner areas the gas system is a dry/sales gas system. Therefore the liquid products are unstable and the N.G.L. products are transported with the oil products to land for further processing, In the Oseberg/Statfjord/Gullfaks area the liquids produced are stabile, therefore the gas export will be a rich gas and must have the N.G.L. removed before transfer to the southern gas systems. Export from the Frigg area is special as the gas from the reservoir is very dry and needs very little processing.
Gas from the fbture Troll field will be transported untreated to Norway for processing before transfer to the dry export system. This project is the largest example of mukiphase flow over long distances and deep water in the Norwegian North Sea.
Investigation Into Scale Effects On Motions And Mooring Forces Of A Turret-Moored Tanker
Authors: Withers Johan , Dercksen Albert 
Published: October 2008

ABSTRACT
A loaded 200 kDWT tanker moored by means of an internal bow-turret is exposed to survival conditions (colinearly directed irregular waves and wind). The water depth amounts to 82.5 m and the turret mooring system consists of 6 equally spaced chains.
By means of time-domain computations of the coupled chain-mooring-tanker system the wave frequency (WF) and low frequency (LF) turret motions and chain/turret forces are simultaneously determined.
The model tests were carried out on scale 82.5. The results of the computations are compared with the results of the model tests using the wave registration as calibrated in the basin. The comparison required the modelling of some additional damping which is expected to originate from small sway and yaw motions which were measured during the model test.
Investigations on scale effects in the resistance coefficients of the hull in surge direction are presented. Finally the sensitivity to changes in the values of the drag and inertia coefficients of the chains on the mooring loads in the chains and turret construction is given.

INTRODUCTION
A moored tanker exposed to irregular head seas performs small amplitude WF pitch, heave and surge motions and relatively large amplitude low frequency surge motions around a mean surge displacement. The mean surge displacement is caused by the mean wave drift force and the steady wind force. The low frequency surge motions are due to the low frequency part of the second order wave drift forces. Since the total damping of the low frequency motions is small, and in irregular head seas the frequency of the slowly varying forces corresponds to the natural surge frequency of the system, resonance occurs. Large low frequency surge motions and consequently large mooring forces may be the result.
For the design of the mooring system, the large amplitude motions and the corresponding forces are required and it is therefore of prime importance to have knowledge about the low frequency excitation and reaction forces. The excitation and reaction forces as acting on a chain-turret moored tanker are given below:velocity dependent wave drift forces (including wave drift damping)viscous damping forceswind damping forcesinertia forces due to the virtual mass of the tankerrestoring and damping forces caused by the mooring system.
In order to determine the total restoring and damping forces of the mooring system the wave frequency tanker motions are required too. By means of an integrated computation (mooring-system-tanker) in the time domain, the instantaneous WF and LF restoring and damping forces as acting on the mooring lines and the turret construction will be used as input for the equation of low frequency motion of the tanker at every time interval to solve the new low frequency turret motions and velocities. The contribution of the hydrodynamic damping induced by the mooring chains on the low frequency part of the vessel motions may be considerable as was shown in Refs, [1] and [2](Available in full paper)
Record-Breaking Water Depth For Fixed Concrete Platforms
Authors: Knudsen Arnt , Skjaeveland Helge , Lindseth Severin , Høklie Morten 
Published: October 2008

ABSTRACT
This paper describes the special design and construction aspects of the TROLL Gravity Base Structure (GBS), When installed in 1995 this platform will be the world's tallest offshore concrete structure, situated in the North Sea in a waterdepth of 300 m or 1000 feet, The paper describes design chllenges such as the ringing waveloading phenomenon as well as novel features, such as flexjoint connection to topside and large scale prefabrication.

TROLL FIELD HISTORY
The Troll gas field is located in 300 to 350 meter water in the northern part of the North Sea, some 80 km northeast of Bergen. The Troll gas reservoir, which was discovered in 1979, cover close to 700 square kilometers in Blocks 31/2, 31/3, 31/5 and 31/6. Troll contains a sweet very lean gas and the recoverable gas reserves are estimated to approximately 1250 billion cubic meters (44 TCF), making Troll the largest offshore gas field in Europe.
The Troll field is planned to be developed in three phases; Phase 1, which is gas production mainly from Block 31/6 also often called the Troll East field; Phase II or Troll Oil, which is oil production mainly from Block 31/2 also often called the Troll West field; Phase Ill future gas production from Block 31/3.
Figures and tables at end of paper Norske Shell was in the spring 1986 appointed as the development operator of the Phase I gas development in Troll East and Statoil will subsequently take over as production operator. Other Partners are Norsk Hydro, Saga Petroleum, Elf Aquitaine, Conoco and Total Marine.
Plans were submitted to the Norwegian Parliament in the fall of 1986 to develop the unitized field. The main gas resources from Troll East, will be produced as Phase I whereas the oil and gas reserves from Troll West needed further study to define development options and phasing. Later it is decided that Norsk Hydro shall develop and operate an oil production from a concrete floating unit.

Development concept
Since the field was declared commercial, more than 80 different development concepts have been considered by Norske Shell. The first plans submitted to the Parliament for Troll Phase I offshore development concept was a fully integrated production, drilling and quarters platform supported by a concrete Gravity Base Structure (GBS). Gas would be exported through the Zeepipe and Statpipe/Norpipe transportation systems to the continent and condensate was assumed to be exported to Sture via Oseberg. During the period up to 1989 this plan was worked up to point of progression to detailed engineering. Engineering work concentrated on cost reduction, deferral of expenditures to improve project economics and measures to improve safety and operability.
In the light of new developments in technology, alternative development concepts were then reviewed. In early 1990 it was decided to adopt the onshore processing concept as the preferred alternative for development of Troll Phase 1 gas.