当前陆上、上游、非常规油井完整性监管框架及改进策略评估

T. Thomas, Raymond L. Johnson
{"title":"当前陆上、上游、非常规油井完整性监管框架及改进策略评估","authors":"T. Thomas, Raymond L. Johnson","doi":"10.2118/195967-ms","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This paper reviews existing analysis of well integrity related regulation in upstream unconventional oil and gas projects and proposes a methodology to enhance such regulation in the future.  This paper has compiled findings from a number of peer-reviewed sources assessing regulatory systems across a number of jurisdictions. These findings were based around four key questions that this paper has assessed (1) what is the overall assessment of current regulatory systems; (2) where to-date are the key areas that current research have focused on; (3) what are the key strengths identified in current research; and (4) what are the key gaps in current research? \n This paper demonstrates that the body of work provides a wide array of assessments and conclusions. Whilst some are quite explicit in their judgment of a particular system’s effectiveness, many refrain from making a holistic assessment in a particular jurisdiction. Much of the research involves the application of prisms, such as environmental risks or local government jurisprudence. Along with these prisms, a number of common aspects of research are identified that strengthen the analyses, such as the use of ‘as drilled’ data and the use of relevant data samples. Some research gaps remain despite these strengths.\n The majority of previous researchers can identify some degree of ineffectiveness in various regulatory regimes. Further, a number of gaps exist as a result of regulatory systems being incomplete or inadequate, potentially masking other inadequacies. To address these gaps, this paper proposes a methodology to improve and clarify knowledge and practical recommendations to improve the effectiveness of assurance activities by both regulatory agencies and operators. Specifically, this methodology focuses on a typological assessment of written rules in a number of jurisdictions. As an example, we present an ‘as built’ dataset to assess compliance with rules and identify means of assurance. This methodology proposes surveying of regulatory agencies and operators to validate the assertion that gaps can be identified and corrected and provide more insight into how regulatory systems function and the systematic causes of gaps.","PeriodicalId":10909,"journal":{"name":"Day 2 Tue, October 01, 2019","volume":"62 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Assessment Of The Current Regulatory Frameworks For Onshore, Upstream, Unconventional Well Integrity And Strategies For Improvement\",\"authors\":\"T. Thomas, Raymond L. Johnson\",\"doi\":\"10.2118/195967-ms\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This paper reviews existing analysis of well integrity related regulation in upstream unconventional oil and gas projects and proposes a methodology to enhance such regulation in the future.  This paper has compiled findings from a number of peer-reviewed sources assessing regulatory systems across a number of jurisdictions. These findings were based around four key questions that this paper has assessed (1) what is the overall assessment of current regulatory systems; (2) where to-date are the key areas that current research have focused on; (3) what are the key strengths identified in current research; and (4) what are the key gaps in current research? \\n This paper demonstrates that the body of work provides a wide array of assessments and conclusions. Whilst some are quite explicit in their judgment of a particular system’s effectiveness, many refrain from making a holistic assessment in a particular jurisdiction. Much of the research involves the application of prisms, such as environmental risks or local government jurisprudence. Along with these prisms, a number of common aspects of research are identified that strengthen the analyses, such as the use of ‘as drilled’ data and the use of relevant data samples. Some research gaps remain despite these strengths.\\n The majority of previous researchers can identify some degree of ineffectiveness in various regulatory regimes. Further, a number of gaps exist as a result of regulatory systems being incomplete or inadequate, potentially masking other inadequacies. To address these gaps, this paper proposes a methodology to improve and clarify knowledge and practical recommendations to improve the effectiveness of assurance activities by both regulatory agencies and operators. Specifically, this methodology focuses on a typological assessment of written rules in a number of jurisdictions. As an example, we present an ‘as built’ dataset to assess compliance with rules and identify means of assurance. This methodology proposes surveying of regulatory agencies and operators to validate the assertion that gaps can be identified and corrected and provide more insight into how regulatory systems function and the systematic causes of gaps.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10909,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Day 2 Tue, October 01, 2019\",\"volume\":\"62 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-09-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Day 2 Tue, October 01, 2019\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2118/195967-ms\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Day 2 Tue, October 01, 2019","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2118/195967-ms","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文回顾了上游非常规油气项目油井完整性相关法规的现有分析,并提出了未来加强此类法规的方法。本文汇编了来自许多同行评议来源的研究结果,评估了多个司法管辖区的监管体系。这些发现基于本文评估的四个关键问题:(1)对当前监管体系的总体评估是什么;(2)目前研究的重点领域;(3)当前研究确定的主要优势是什么;(4)当前研究的主要空白是什么?本文表明,工作主体提供了广泛的评估和结论。虽然有些国家相当明确地判断某一特定制度的有效性,但许多国家避免对某一特定司法管辖区进行全面评估。许多研究涉及棱镜的应用,如环境风险或地方政府法理。除了这些棱镜之外,还确定了一些加强分析的常见研究方面,例如使用“钻探”数据和使用相关数据样本。尽管有这些优势,一些研究差距仍然存在。以前的大多数研究人员都可以确定各种监管制度在某种程度上的无效。此外,由于监管制度不完整或不充分,可能掩盖了其他不足之处,因此存在一些差距。为了解决这些差距,本文提出了一种改进和澄清知识的方法和实用建议,以提高监管机构和运营商保证活动的有效性。具体而言,该方法侧重于对许多司法管辖区的书面规则进行类型学评估。作为一个例子,我们提供了一个“建成”的数据集来评估规则的合规性并确定保证的方法。该方法建议对监管机构和运营商进行调查,以验证可以识别和纠正差距的断言,并提供更多关于监管系统如何运作以及差距的系统性原因的见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
An Assessment Of The Current Regulatory Frameworks For Onshore, Upstream, Unconventional Well Integrity And Strategies For Improvement
This paper reviews existing analysis of well integrity related regulation in upstream unconventional oil and gas projects and proposes a methodology to enhance such regulation in the future.  This paper has compiled findings from a number of peer-reviewed sources assessing regulatory systems across a number of jurisdictions. These findings were based around four key questions that this paper has assessed (1) what is the overall assessment of current regulatory systems; (2) where to-date are the key areas that current research have focused on; (3) what are the key strengths identified in current research; and (4) what are the key gaps in current research?  This paper demonstrates that the body of work provides a wide array of assessments and conclusions. Whilst some are quite explicit in their judgment of a particular system’s effectiveness, many refrain from making a holistic assessment in a particular jurisdiction. Much of the research involves the application of prisms, such as environmental risks or local government jurisprudence. Along with these prisms, a number of common aspects of research are identified that strengthen the analyses, such as the use of ‘as drilled’ data and the use of relevant data samples. Some research gaps remain despite these strengths. The majority of previous researchers can identify some degree of ineffectiveness in various regulatory regimes. Further, a number of gaps exist as a result of regulatory systems being incomplete or inadequate, potentially masking other inadequacies. To address these gaps, this paper proposes a methodology to improve and clarify knowledge and practical recommendations to improve the effectiveness of assurance activities by both regulatory agencies and operators. Specifically, this methodology focuses on a typological assessment of written rules in a number of jurisdictions. As an example, we present an ‘as built’ dataset to assess compliance with rules and identify means of assurance. This methodology proposes surveying of regulatory agencies and operators to validate the assertion that gaps can be identified and corrected and provide more insight into how regulatory systems function and the systematic causes of gaps.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Verification of Autonomous Inflow Control Valve Flow Performance Within Heavy Oil-SAGD Thermal Flow Loop Reactive vs Proactive Intelligent Well Injection Evaluation for EOR in a Stratified GOM Deepwater Wilcox Reservoir using Integrated Simulation-Surface Network Modeling A Novel Workflow for Oil Production Forecasting using Ensemble-Based Decline Curve Analysis An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Predict the Water Saturation in Carbonate Reservoir Rocks Characterization of Organic Pores within High-Maturation Shale Gas Reservoirs
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1