Plug and abandonment decision-making: Quality at the right price

被引:0
|
作者
Abrahamsen E.B. [1 ,2 ]
Selvik J.T. [1 ,2 ]
Lohne H.P. [2 ]
Arild Ø. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] University of Stavanger, Stavanger
[2] NORCE Norwegian Research Centre AS, Stavanger
关键词
ALARP; Cautionary principle; Cost-benefit analysis; Expected values; Plug and abandonment; Uncertainty;
D O I
10.23940/ijpe.20.01.p1.19
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
In Norway, the current regulation for permanent plugging and abandonment of offshore wells is prescriptive, where the requirements for the number and size of plugs do not consider the different types of wells. One then disregards the fact that the wells differ with respect to, for example, flow potential. A differentiation between the wells could allow for cost-saving benefits from the least critical wells, which environment. In this regard, a special challenge lies in how much weight should be given to uncertainties and, in particular, the cautionary principle. In this paper, we look more closely into this issue. We conclude that it is not appropriate to use a static approach to manage plug and abandonment operations. As different ways of plugging and abandonment may be appropriate depending on the well situation, the approach should allow different weights to be given to uncertainties and the cautionary principle. Wells with limited flow potential, for example, should not give as much weight to the cautionary principle as wells with high flow potential. We argue for the use of a dynamic approach to manage plug and abandonment operations, ranging from one extreme, where decisions are made with strong reference to expected cost for some plug and abandonment wells, to another, where the cautionary principle is adopted instead for other wells, with a strong reference to leakage consequences (such as environmental aspects). © 2020 Totem Publisher, Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:1 / 9
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] WATER-QUALITY MODELING FOR DECISION-MAKING
    ORLOB, GT
    [J]. JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT-ASCE, 1992, 118 (03): : 295 - 307
  • [42] MONOPOLY PRICE-ADVERTISING DECISION-MAKING UNDER UNCERTAINTY
    BRICK, IE
    JAGPAL, HS
    [J]. JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, 1981, 29 (03): : 279 - 285
  • [43] Measuring the quality of judgement and decision-making in nursing
    Dowding, D
    Thompson, C
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING, 2003, 44 (01) : 49 - 57
  • [44] Quality Decision-Making through the Systems Reliability
    Tofan, Cezarina Adina
    [J]. QUALITY-ACCESS TO SUCCESS, 2014, 15 (142): : 72 - 77
  • [45] Quality of information measures for autonomous decision-making
    Prasanth, R
    Cabrera, J
    Amin, J
    Mehra, R
    Purtell, R
    Smith, R
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2004 AMERICAN CONTROL CONFERENCE, VOLS 1-6, 2004, : 1002 - 1007
  • [46] Successful societies: Decision-making and the quality of attentiveness
    Stones, Rob
    Turner, Bryan S.
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY, 2020, 71 (01): : 183 - 199
  • [47] THE QUALITY-RELATED DECISION-MAKING PROCESS
    DUNCALF, AJ
    DALE, BG
    [J]. ENGINEERING COSTS AND PRODUCTION ECONOMICS, 1989, 18 (02): : 169 - 180
  • [48] Supporting data quality management in decision-making
    Shankaranarayanan, G.
    Cai, Yu
    [J]. DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS, 2006, 42 (01) : 302 - 317
  • [49] IMAGE QUALITY AND MEDICAL DIAGNOSTIC DECISION-MAKING
    GOODENOUGH, DJ
    [J]. PHOTOGRAPHIC SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING, 1977, 21 (05): : 262 - 268
  • [50] Connecting the Quality of Evidence to Clinical Decision-Making
    Miller, Elaine
    [J]. PAIN MANAGEMENT NURSING, 2017, 18 (03) : 121 - 122