Advertisement

Offshore Operations and Logistics

  • Michael D. MaxEmail author
  • Arthur H. Johnson
Chapter
  • 656 Downloads

Abstract

Carrying out energy-related offshore exploration and production depends first on having the equipment to be able to work in environments and sea conditions in which the reward would justify the effort. The history of the offshore energy industry is rising to the task of devising new technology, new types of vessels, communications, control systems, skills, and all that is necessary to be able reach, supply, carry out work expeditiously, and then be able to bring product to market. In addition, working at sea is governed not only by the laws of coastal states, but by regional and international agencies concerned with safe and environmentally defensible practices. We see no barrier to supply and logistics for NGH exploration, including drilling, in the tropical and temperate world ocean. The worldwide network of ports and special vessels that has been built to support conventional oil and gas exploration can be used to support NGH development activities. Operations and logistics in the Arctic are much more difficult for all exploration and production activities.

Keywords

Exploration Production CAPEX O&M costs Access Search and rescue Spill response 

References

  1. AC. 2016. The Arctic Council. http://www.arctic-council.org/index.php/en/about-us. Accessed 7 Feb 2016.
  2. Byers, M. 2013. China could be the future of Arctic oil. Aljazeera. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/08/2013821135829162420.html. Accessed 22 Aug 2013.
  3. Byers, M. 2014. Why Canada’s search for an icebreaker is an Arctic embarrassment. The Globe and Mail. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/the-north/why-canadas-search-for-an-icebreaker-is-an-arctic-embarrassment/article16425755/. Accessed 7 Feb 2016.
  4. Camerlenghi, A., and E. Lodolo. 1994. Bottom simulating reflector on the south Shetland margin (Antarctic Peninsula) and implications for the presence of gas hydrates. Terra Antarctica 1: 154–157.Google Scholar
  5. Conley, H.A, and M. Melino. 2016. An Arctic Redesign. Recommendations to Rejuvenate the Arctic Council, Center for Strategic & International Studies (Washington, DC, U.S.A.). A report of the CSIS Europe Program, February, 28 pp.Google Scholar
  6. DeGeer, D., M. Paulin, T. Cowin, J. Cocker, W. Ernst, J. McCullough, G. Lanan, M. Brand, McKee, and E.K. Albaugh. 2014. Survey of Arctic & cold region technology for offshore field development: Challenges & solutions. IntecSea, Inc. & Offshore Magazine. Poster 110, One sheet.Google Scholar
  7. Dlouhy, J.A. 2015. Shell abandons Arctic oil quest after $7 billion bid yields ‘disappointing’ results, Fuelfix, September 28. http://fuelfix.com/blog/2015/09/28/shells-arctic-oil-well-comes-up-dry/#34370101=0. Accessed 15 Oct 2015.
  8. ECS. 2016. Continental Shelf, the last maritime zone. UNEP/GRID-Arendal (originally published 2009), 36 pp. ISBN: 978-82-7701-059-5. Accessed 7 Feb 2016.Google Scholar
  9. Gambeta, L.A., and A.P.R. Maldonado. 1990. Geophysical investigations in the Bransfield strait and in the Bellinghsausen Sea-Antarctica. In ed. B. St. John. Antarctica as an exploration frontier—hydrocarbon potential, geology and hazards. American Association Petroleum Geologists Studies in Geology, Tulsa 31, 127–141.Google Scholar
  10. GEBCO 2014. General bathymetric chart of the oceans. “Image reproduced from the GEBCO world map 2014, www.gebco.net”. 1 sheet, 1 digital file. http://www.gebco.net/data_and_products/printable_maps/gebco_world_map/.
  11. IAOGP. 2013. OGP environmental management in arctic oil and gas operations: Good practice guide. Report 449, May 2013, 120 pp.Google Scholar
  12. Jakobsson, M., L. Mayer, and D. Monahan. 2015. Arctic 68(4). The Arctic Institute of North America 68(Suppl 1): 41–47.Google Scholar
  13. Johnson, J.E., J. Mienert, A. Plaza-Faverola, S. Vadakkepuliyambatta, J. Knies, S. Bünz, K. Andreassen, and B. Ferré. 2015. Abiotic methane from ultraslow-spreading ridges can charge Arctic gas hydrates. Geology 43(5): 371–374. doi: 10.1130/G36440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kimball, S.M., and D.R. Hutchinson. 2016. USGS leverages extended continental shelf research to address deep-se science issues. Sea Technology 57(1): 20–23.Google Scholar
  15. LOS. 2016. CLCS Begins Review of Russia’s Arctic Submission, 3 pp. http://us6.campaign-archive2.com/?u=f8f44615fa&id=30b96c8d33&e=8a752f6104. Accessed 9 Feb 2016.
  16. Marshall, T. 2015. Prisoners of geography. New York: Scribner. 290 pp.Google Scholar
  17. Max, M.D., and A. Lowrie. 1993. Natural gas hydrates: Arctic and Nordic Sea potential. In Arctic geology and petroleum potential, proceedings of the norwegian petroleum society conference, 15–17 August 1990, Tromsø, Norway, eds. T.O. Vorren, E. Bergsager, Ø.A. Dahl-Stamnes, E. Holter, B. Johansen, E. Lie, and T.B. Lund, 27–53. Amsterdam: Norwegian Petroleum Society (NPF), Special Publication 2 Elsevier.Google Scholar
  18. Max, M.D., A.H. Johnson, and W.P. Dillon. 2013. Natural gas hydrate arctic ocean deepwater resource potential SpringerBriefs in Energy, 113 pp.Google Scholar
  19. Mullen, J. 2015. JIP examines Arctic oil spill response system. Offshore Magazine. http://www.offshore-mag.com/articles/print/volume-75/issue-11/arctic-update/jip-examines-arctic-oil-spill-response-systems.html. Accessed 27 Jan 2016.
  20. Offshore, 1/12/16. 2016. Icebreaker vessels designed for harsh offshore Sakhalin operations. Offshore http://www.offshore-mag.com/articles/2016/02/icebreaker-vessels-designed-for-harsh-offshore-sakhalin-operations.html. Accessed 1 Feb 2016.
  21. RAI. 2013. Arctic Council signs oil spill response deal. Rai Novosti http://en.rian.ru/russia/20130515/181163818/Arctic-Council-Signs-Oil-Spill-Response-Deal.html. Accessed 4 May 2014.
  22. SAT. 1961. The Antarctic Treaty. Secretariat of the Antarctic treaty. http://www.ats.aq/e/ats.htm. Accessed 26 Apr 2016.
  23. Schoolmeester, T., and E. Baker. 2009. Continental shelf. UNEP/GRID-Arendal: The Last Maritime Zone. 36 pp.Google Scholar
  24. S-R. 2013. Statoil and Rosneft move forward with exploration cooperation. Statoil announcement. http://www.statoil.com/en/NewsAndMedia/News/2013/Pages/21Jun_Rosneft.aspx. Accessed 9 Feb 2016.
  25. Statoil. 2015. The first gas pipeline crosses the Arctic Circle. Statoil online. http://www.statoil.com/en/NewsAndMedia/News/2015/Pages/21Aug_polarled.aspx. Accessed 7 Feb 2016.
  26. Taft, G. 2006. Regulatory and permitting environment for gas hydrate. In Economic geology of natural gas hydrate, eds. Max et al 2006, Max M.D, Johnson A and W.P. Dillon, 267–288. Berlin, Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Tinivella U., E. Lodolo, A. Camerlenghi, and G. Boehm. 1998. Seismic tomography study of a bottom simulating reflector off the South Shetland Islands (Antarctica). In Gas hydrates: Relevance to world margin stability and climate change, eds. J.-P. Henriet, and J. Mienert, 141–151. Geological Society, London Special Publication 137.Google Scholar
  28. USGS. 2008. Circum-Arctic resource appraisal: Estimates of undiscovered oil and gas north of the Arctic Circle. USGS Fact sheet 2008–3049, 4 pp.Google Scholar
  29. Veevers, J.J. 1987. The conjugate continental margins of Antarctica and Australia. In The Antarctic continental margin: geology and geophysics of offshore Wilkes Land, eds. Eittreim, S.L. and M.A. Hampton, 45–73. Circum-Pac. Council for Energy and Natural Research. Earth Science Series 5A, Houston, Texas.Google Scholar
  30. WC. 2014. Opportunities and Challenges for Arctic oil and gas development. Eurasia Group Report for The Wilson Center, 29 pp. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Artic%20Report_F2.pdf. Accessed 24 Jan 2014.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hydrate Energy International LLCKennerUSA
  2. 2.Hydrate Energy International LLCKennerUSA

Personalised recommendations