bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Pore Pressure Prediction From Seismic Tomography
Authors: Sayers C.M. , Johnson G.M. , Denyer G. 
Published: March 2009

Abstract
Although exploration and production in deep water areas has been growingrapidly, deep water wells are expensive and require a pre-drill pore pressureprediction for safe and economic drilling. The use of seismic velocities forpore pressure prediction is well known, but the interval velocities used haveoften been derived from moveout velocities, which average the velocity over theseismic aperture. These velocities are therefore not suitable for pore pressureprediction in the presence of lateral variations as may arise from the presenceof dipping structures, lithology variations, salt layers of various thickness, fault blocks or variations in compaction and pore pressure. Reflectiontomography gives improved spatial resolution of the seismic velocity field andthus allows a more reliable pre-drill pore pressure cube to be obtained. Havingobtained seismic velocities using reflection tomography, estimates of the porepressure can be made if a suitable velocity to pore pressure transform can beestablished. Examples include the methods of Hottman and Johnson1, Pennebaker2, Eaton3 and Bowers4. Differences in these methods lead to different seismicvelocity to pore pressure transforms. The resulting difference in predictedpore pressure may become significant when a pore pressure prediction isrequired outside the interval over which the relation is calibrated, and thisdifference is examined using a deep water Gulf of Mexico case study.

Introduction
A knowledge of formation pore pressure is a key factor for the successfulexploration and production of hydrocarbons. In deep water, wells are expensive, and the increased costs associated with deepwater drilling in overpressuredenvironments demands a reliable pre-drill prediction of formation pore pressureto be made. Large water depths reduce the difference between the pore pressureand fracture stress and therefore require the pore pressure to be predicted asaccurately as possible. Too low a mud weight will allow formation fluids toenter the wellbore which, in the worst case, could lead to loss of the well, whilst too high a mud weight will give too low a rate of penetration and couldlead to fracturing of the formation. In exploration, a knowledge of formationpore pressure allows the hydraulic connectivity and fluid migration pathways ina region to be assessed. Thus an increase in pore pressure below a seismichorizon may indicate the presence of a seal, while different pore pressureeither side of a fault may suggest that the fault forms a barrier to flow.
Effective Implementation of OCS Spill Response Regulations
Authors: Connor Jodie 
Published: March 2009

Abstract
Offshore exploration and production companies, as well as pipelinecompanies, must operate in compliance with regulations pertaining to oil spillresponse plans, training, and drills. This paper examines the regulations andfocuses on the implementation of an effective compliance and preparednessprogram.
Spill response regulations issued in 30 CFR 254 apply to all operators offacilities seaward of the coastline.
Operators can ensure response preparedness by complying with OCS regulationsincluding 1) contracting for equipment and personnel to ensure response toworst case discharge planning calculations 2) effective training of spillmanagement team and 3) conducting exercises.
A prompt, efficient response to an oil spill will help to minimizeenvironmental impacts to our nation's resources.

Introduction
The Clean Water Act (CWA) prohibits the discharge of oil to U.S. waters andprovides the authority to establish regulations and procedures for response tooil discharges. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90), enacted in August 1990, is comprehensive legislation that includes, in part, provisions to improve oilspill prevention, preparedness, and response capability, and establishlimitations on liability for damages resulting from oil pollution. The OPA 90revised the CWA to expand Federal response authority, increase penalties forspills, and require interagency and facility response plans. The Department of Interior's Minerals Management Service (MMS) was delegated the authority toestablish procedures to prevent and recover discharges of oil for all offshorefacilities and pipelines.
In accordance with OPA 90, the owner/operator of a facility (well, platform, pipeline) becomes the responsible party in the event of an oil spill from thefacility. The responsible party is required to respond immediately to cleanupor mitigate the effects of any discharge.
The Federal government has the authority to direct response efforts to ensurethe cleanup is satisfactory and timely. The United States Coast Guard (USCG), acting as the Federal On-Scene Coordinator, is responsible for ensuring animmediate and effective removal of the discharge. In carrying out thisresponsibility, the USCG may monitor, direct, or take over the cleanupoperation. The responsible party is liable for all cleanup costs, including thegovernment's removal costs.
Pre-Planning for Effective Dispersant Operations
Authors: Stong Beatrice A. 
Published: March 2009

Abstract
The U.S. Department of Interior's Minerals Management Service requiresoffshore operators to include a plan for the use of chemical dispersants in Gulf of Mexico Regional Oil Spill Response Plans. This paper will address howand why the effective use of dispersants requires pre-planning and integrationof a number of different systems and areas of expertise.

Application
The proper use of dispersants can preclude widespread environmental damageresulting from the shoreline impact of an oil spill. When and whereappropriate, dispersants may be the most viable response option available tothe offshore operator. However, the window of opportunity in which dispersantsare effective can be short-lived. Pre-planning is critical to ensure dispersantoperations are implemented in a timely and cost effective manner.

Significance
Less than 10 years ago the use of dispersants was not widely accepted by theregulatory community. However, the oil & gas and marine transportationindustries operating in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) have worked closely with stateand federal agencies to become the leaders in the development of dispersants asa primary response tool. While the successful use of dispersants in GOM Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil spills over the past few years has validated theirplace as an effective response tool, improper use or poorly applied dispersantscould reverse the acceptance of this valuable response tool.

Introduction
When an oil spill occurs, there are a number of response technologies thatcan be deployed. The three primary "tools in the toolbox" are mechanicalrecovery (utilizing boom and skimmers), chemical dispersants, and in-situburning. The success of each of these response options is highly dependent upontwo primary factors: the type and behavior of the oil spilled, and the level oflogistics preparedness necessary to support the response.
Boat Spray Application of Dispersant
Authors: Headley Kirk 
Published: March 2009

Abstract
Dispersant application is becoming considerably more utilized as a tool inthe response toolbox at oil spills. The primary application tool in the pasthas been through aircraft. While aircraft application is extremely effective, boat application can be efficiently utilized as an additional tool for deliveryof dispersant. This paper discusses the potential use and awareness for boatapplication of dispersant.

Introduction
Dispersant use on offshore oil spills has become increasingly more common asa tool to combat the spread of oil spills. Traditionally, here in the United States, oil companies have looked toward aerial application of dispersants. Theuse of aircraft is a valuable tool in the ongoing fight of oil spills andshould never be overlooked. Boat application of dispersants will not replaceaircraft spraying. Boat application should be considered as another toolavailable to qualified individuals (QI), the incident commander (IC), theresponsible party (RP), and the spill management team (SMT) of the oil ortransportation company, or the federal and state government that gets involvedin the task of mitigating the affects of an oil spill.

Boat Spray Application of Dispersant
Dispersant use in approved locations is not the topic in this paper. Thegovernment has well defined avenues for approving the use of dispersant. Itshould be noted that any use of any chemical in the response to an oil spillmust have complete authorized approval prior to any application.
The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) has had a tremendous impact on oil, transportation, storage and response companies and in the short decade since1989, the United States has seen an unsurpassed effort of the buildup ofresponse equipment, primarily containment, and mechanical recovery equipment. Interestingly enough, the primary dispersant delivery system in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) was available to QI's, IC's, SMT's, and RP's and was in operationprior to OPA 90.
Genesis Spar Risers: Interference Assessment and VIV Model Testing
Authors: Kavanagh W.K. , Imas Leonard , Thompson Hugh , Lee Li 
Published: March 2009

Abstract
Consideration of vortex-induced vibration (VIV) and riser interference for adeep water riser array presents a complex engineering problem which requiresknowledge not only of the behaviour of single risers in open-water current, butalso shielding and VIV effects unique to riser arrays. The Genesis SPAR, located in 2,600ft water depth in Green Canyon 205, accommodates a closelyspaced array of drilling, production and export risers run from a centralmoonpool. This paper describes riser VIV model testing and outlines how riserinterference was assessed using a combination of wake flow modelling, globalinterference analysis and VIV prediction, calibrated to model test results and CFD analysis.
Tow-tank model testing of riser pairs, performed at MIT, evaluated theinfluence of the wake field of an upstream riser on both VIV and drag for bothbare and straked risers under different conditions of riser separation. Astate-of-the-art approach to interference analysis was subsequently adoptedwhich evaluated riser global response to loop current in the presence of both VIV drag-amplification on an upstream riser and wake-induced drag reduction ona downstream riser.
Model tests showed that the use of helical strakes as VIV mitigation devicesproved effective on single risers exposed to currents involving wide reducedvelocity and Reynolds number regimes. Interference & blockage however, degrade the strakes' VIV suppression performance, as illustrated by results of RANS CFD simulations and tow-tank experiments of riser pairs.1
Interference analysis of several loop current conditions illustrated thatminimum riser separation was not associated with the highest surface currentvelocity, but with a lesser surface velocity which attenuated less withdepth.
Model testing clearly illustrates the impact of riser separation on theeffectiveness of strakes. Interference analysis calibrated to such testsprovides an innovative approach from which recommendations may be made aboutthe conditions under which adjacent risers should be operated and mitigationmeasures available to avoid interference.
Impulse and Energy in Deepsea Riser Collisions Owing to Wake Interference
Authors: Huse Erling , Kleiven Gudmund 
Published: March 2009

Abstract
The paper describes model testing of top tensioned, deep sea riser arrays, conducted by MARINTEK for the Norwegian Deepwater Programme. The originalpurpose of the tests was to determine criteria for on-set of clashing orcollisions between individual risers in current. Furthermore, force andacceleration measurements made possible the determination of the impulse andenergy involved in the collisions.
The results show that the previously published theory based on turbulentwakes and momentum balance, predicts onset of collisions to an accuracy whichis in most cases within 10 to15 percent, referring to velocity. For riserswithout strakes collision energies up to 65 kJ, prototype, were measured. Withstrakes fitted to the risers the maximum measured collision energy was oneorder of magnitude lower. An approximate empirical formula for the collisionenergy of bare risers is suggested.
The paper also discusses possible practical solutions to the problem ofcurrent induced riser clashing.

Introduction
Previous research projects and publications (Refs.1 and 2) have concludedthat collisions or clashing between individual risers may beome an issue ofconsiderable concern in the design of riser systems for future deep seafloating production systems. As part of the Norwegian Deepwater Programme (NDP)MARINTEK has conducted a series of model tests with top-tensioned, deep searisers to determine criteria for on-set of collisions, and to determine theforce impulse, effective mass, and energy involved in such collisions. Thepurpose of the present paper is to give a survey of these tests and theresults.

Physics of riser collisions
The static deflection of a riser due to the current drag is proportional tothe square of its length, other parameters kept constant. For deep sea systemsthis means that a relatively small difference in static deflection may lead tomechanical contact between adjacent risers. The situation is illustrated in Fig. 1. The downstream riser, R2, is sitting in the wake of an upstream riser,R1. The effective inflow velocity, and thus the static deflection, of R2 willbe reduced relative to R1.
A Combined Time-Frequency Domain Procedure To Estimate Riser Fatigue Caused by Heave-Induced Vortex-Induced Vibration
Authors: Maher Jim , Finn Lyle 
Published: March 2009

Abstract
This paper presents a combined time-frequency domain procedure for estimation of SCR fatigue damage caused by heave-induced intermittent Vortex-Induced Vibration (VIV). The procedure is implemented in a computersimulation which combines time domain motions with frequency domaincalculations of VIV damage. It has been calibrated to fatigue damage dataacquired from Phase 1 of the PMB Highly Compliant Rigid Riser JIP. Simulationshave been performed for a number of host platforms in various environments. Thefatigue calculation procedure, as well as the results for these simulations arepresented. Results show that significant damage due to this effect can beexpected for certain combinations of floating system type and environment.

Introduction
A series of large scale model tests were conducted in 1998 at Lake Pond Oreille in Idaho as part of the PMB Highly Compliant Riser JIP, as documentedin [1]. These tests were originally designed to determine the onset of bucklingin Steel Catenary (SCR), Lazy Wave (LWCR), and Catenary Vertical Access Risers(CVAR). The testing consisted of forcing a sinusoidal displacement at the topend of the riser and recording the section forces and accelerations at a numberof instrumented "pup" joints along the riser, mostly located in the sag-bendareas.
Although not previously expected, and certainly not accounted for in present SCR design methodologies, a great deal of out-of-plane Vortex-Induced Vibrationcan be seen in the displacement and bending stress time series. Although it isnot clear that these bending moments can be directly scaled to a full scaleriser, there is every indication that these out-of-plane stresses could governthe design of these risers.
The nature of the observed VIV displacements is quite chaotic and a regularsinusoidal displacement of the top of the riser induces non-repeatingout-of-plane displacements. In general, response is reasonably narrow-bandedwithin one half-cycle of top excitation, but there can be large differences inthe frequency of the oscillation from one half-cycle to the next. Analysis ofthe data did not reveal any pattern for the frequency jumps.
Survey AUVs Are Low Risk Technology
Authors: Bjerrum Anders 
Published: March 2009

Abstract
Maridan has completed its 5-year AUV development program and are nowproducing Autonomous Underwater Vehicles for the survey industry. The currentproduction to be available for delivery in year 2000 includes 4 commercial MARIDAN vehicles for shallow water (optional depth rating 200 – 600 m). Themain advantages by using AUVs instead of tethered vehicles (ROVs or ROTVs) foroffshore surveys are:–Cost savings.AUVs can be deployed from a variety of places, including harbours, offshoreplatforms and ships of opportunity.Running multiple AUVs in parallel will reduce the survey time. Survey AUVs cango as fast as the payload allows (2–4 m/s) because they are not restricted by cable drag.–Improved data quality.AUVs can follow a straight path without being disturbed from surface waves; some payload instruments are highly sensible to path disturbances (syntheticaperture sonar). Furthermore, because of its obstacle avoidance sonar AUVs canfly at low altitude for video recording, sub-bottom profiling, etc.–Operation in areas, which are inaccessible or difficult for ROV-ships:Shallow water (1–5 m), deep water (1000 m or deeper), close to fixstructures, under ice-cover, in tunnels, etc.
Survey AUVs are capable to carry out pre-programmed surveys completely autonomous(AUV-mode) or with operator control (UUVmode). Typical survey paths includelawnmower patterns, pipeline routes or any other path that can be defined inglobal co-ordinates. The following examples indicates potential applicationsfor Survey AUVs:Line surveys with camera, line-scan or video recording: Pipeline and cableinspection, route surveys, gravel dump surveys.Site surveys with side-scan sonar or multibeam echosounder: BathymetrySite surveys with Synthetic Aperture Sonar: High resolution terrainmodellingSite surveys with bottom hydrophones: Shallow seismic, Sub-Bottom ProfilingSite surveys with environmental sensors: Oceanographic surveys
In March 1999 a 10-day site-survey was carried out by a MARIDAN 200 from thesurvey vessel "Zealous" offshore Namibia at 80 m water depth. Thecustomer's interest was to examine the use of a MARIDAN vehicle for autonomoussurvey activities thereby reducing significantly the cost and time taken forthe exploration of offshore hard mineral fields (diamonds). Equipped with sidescan sonar, the MARIDAN 200 was required to perform pre-programmed autonomoussurveys and to log the data for further post-analysis at the surface.
Generation of Transgenic Mice
Authors: Cho Andrew , Haruyama Naoto , Kulkarni Ashok B. 
Published: March 2009

AbstractThis unit describes detailed step‐by‐step protocols, reagents, and equipment required for successful generation of transgenic mice using pronuclear injection. The experimental methods and practical tips given here will help guide beginners in understanding what is required and what to avoid in these standard protocols for efficiently generating transgenic mice. Curr. Protoc. Cell Biol. 42:19.11.1‐19.11.22. © 2009 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
BK Virus (BKV): Infection, Propagation, Quantitation, Purification, Labeling, and Analysis of Cell Entry
Authors: Moriyama Takahito , Sorokin Andrey 
Published: March 2009

AbstractBK virus (BKV) can cause BKV nephritis in renal transplant patients and has become a significant reason for graft loss in this decade. BKV is latent in the urogenital tract and most likely is transported with the donor kidney to recipients. BKV replication occurs in the nucleus of human renal proximal tubular cells (HRPTEC) and daughter viruses are delivered to other cells to spread infection. A few in vitro studies have been reported about the mechanism and kinetics of BKV infection. However, there are still a lot of unknown factors regarding BKV infection. This unit describes the handling of BKV, BKV propagation, determination of titer and ability to infect cells, as well as purification and labeling of BKV in order to analyze BKV cell entry. Curr. Protoc. Cell Biol. 42:26.2.1‐26.2.13. © 2009 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Risk Analysis Frameworks for Counterterrorism
Authors: Scouras James , Parnell Gregory S. , Ayyub Bilal M. , Liebe Robert M. 
Published: March 2009

Abstract
Risk is the potential for loss or harm due to the likelihood of an unwanted scenario and its potential adverse consequences. Risk analysis, encompassing risk assessment and risk management, has been widely adopted as the proper analytic construct for evaluating the terrorist threat and efficiently allocating finite resources to counter intelligent adversaries who adapt their behaviors in response to our own actions.
Although there are numerous definitions of risk concepts in use in the risk analysis community, the great majority of these definitions recognize the same common elements. We focus on these essential elements to develop straightforward definitions of risk, risk analysis, risk assessment, risk management, threat, vulnerability, and consequence. To further clarify these terms, we also discuss the relationships among them. We also expand some of the classic questions addressed by risk assessment and risk management to more explicitly address terrorism.
A framework is a conceptual or procedural structure used to address complex issues. A risk framework can facilitate both internal and external risk communication and enable risk analysis involving diverse threats and multiple participants. We analyze a selection of risk frameworks to develop a set of tasks that would be included in a comprehensive framework and against which a particular framework could be evaluated: (i) identify goals and objectives, (ii) define system, (iii) assess threats, (iv) assess vulnerabilities, (v) assess consequences, (vi) assess baseline risk, (vii) identify risk management options, (viii) analyze benefits and costs, (ix) make decisions, (x) communicate risks, (xi) implement risk management actions, and (xii) monitor risk management actions.
Logic Trees: Fault, Success, Attack, Event, Probability, and Decision Trees
Authors: Dillon‐Merrill Robin L. , Parnell Gregory S. , Buckshaw Donald L. 
Published: March 2009

Abstract
This article describes the fundamentals of logic trees used in decision and risk analysis. We include in the broad definition of logic trees any conceptual or mathematical model that describes scenarios of events and/or decisions in a treelike structure. Logic trees are important tools for analyzing uncertain events, defining accident scenarios, assessing risk, calculating joint probability distributions, and evaluating decision options. Six types of logic trees are described, compared, and illustrated in this article: fault trees, success trees, attack trees, event trees, probability trees, and decision trees. Fault trees deductively model the combination of system failures and human errors that could lead to an accident. Success trees are the complement of fault trees and model the combination of events that lead to success. Attack trees model the sequential actions of an intelligent adversary to defeat a defensive system. Event trees inductively model the sequences of events that lead to an accident. Probability trees model a sequence of uncertain events in order to calculate the probability of events in the outcome space. Decision trees are logic trees that include sequential decisions in addition to sequential uncertain events. Examples are provided in this article to illustrate the similarities and differences among the types of logic trees. We conclude with challenges for applying logic trees to homeland security applications.