The Sand, Gravel, Aggregate, Mining, and Asphalt Industries are among the harshest environments for scales and weighing equipment. Thousands of electronic load cells in Truck Scales and Railroad Track Scales are replaced every year at high cost.Hydrostatic load cells fromEmery Winslow are the answer! We have installed Hydrostatic Truck scales for such Industry leaders as Vulcan, Martin Marrietta, Hanson, New Castle, Rogers Group, Tilcon, Colas Group, Florida Rock, Anderson Columbia, and many others across the country. We have scales at a Martin Marrietta facility that have held their calibration for more than 10 years, with no adjustments needed! We are also the proud winner of the Vulcan Silver Supplier Award, for 4 years in a row! We even had an entire asphalt silo emptied onto our scale, and not a single load cell was lost.
Hydrostatic load cells are non-electronic, and totally immune to failure from Lightning, water, rodents, power surges, and more. Please read below for more information. Emery Winslow has truck scales of every shape and size, for pit installations or above grade, steel deck or concrete, with unique cleaning features. We can build scales for your heavy off-road vehicles as well (see photo #6 on home page).Please read below, to see how well we know the scale challenges of your industry
Hydrostatic load cells are non-electronic, and totally immune to failure from Lightning, water, rodents, power surges, and more. Please read below for more information. Emery Winslow has truck scales of every shape and size, for pit installations or above grade, steel deck or concrete, with unique cleaning features. We can build scales for your heavy off-road vehicles as well (see photo #6 on home page).Please read below, to see how well we know the scale challenges of your industry
Technologies needed to meet deepwater business needs
Sean HanrahanJames E. Chitwood
Emerging new technologies offer the opportunity to reduce costs and improve the economics of deepwater field development. The key for the new technology provider is to manage or reduce the new technology deployment risk to an operator-acceptable level, so that the operator can justify being an early user. As more of these technologies become industry practice or field qualified, significant field facility economic improvements should make many of today's marginal fields commercial to develop.
DeepStar, an industry initiative to develop deepwater technology, has defined several challenging deepwater fields as business targets for economic modeling and technology development. These fields include long tiebacks, low energy reservoirs, small stand-alone developments, and ultra-deepwater opportunities. This paper discusses the current gaps and the technologies required to maximize value from such deepwater fields.
DeepStar has defined deepwater business targets to guide deepwater studies. These typical targets include the following fields:
Keathley - Gulf of Mexico in 10,000 ft of water developed as a hub class facility
Cottontail - marginal four-well field in 5,000 ft of water in the GoM
Coyote - marginal field with six producer (+ two injector) wells in 10,000 ft of water in the GoM
Hyena - marginal field with nine producers (+ six injector) wells in 5,000 ft of water offshore West Africa.
Most equipment and component level processes add some incremental value to a field's development. It is only when multiple technologies are integrated, each contributing its incremental improvement, that step changes in field economics occur. The use of each new technology inherently includes an early user risk factor for the field development. Thus, operator risk management tends to limit numerous new technology utilizations on a development to maintain project risk at an acceptable level. As a result, technology advancement tends to be slow and conservative to protect the massive investment that deepwater developments require.
When we move field development scenarios from 5,000 ft of water to 10,000 ft, some application aspects are common, while other aspects have significant differences.
Sean HanrahanJames E. Chitwood
Emerging new technologies offer the opportunity to reduce costs and improve the economics of deepwater field development. The key for the new technology provider is to manage or reduce the new technology deployment risk to an operator-acceptable level, so that the operator can justify being an early user. As more of these technologies become industry practice or field qualified, significant field facility economic improvements should make many of today's marginal fields commercial to develop.
DeepStar, an industry initiative to develop deepwater technology, has defined several challenging deepwater fields as business targets for economic modeling and technology development. These fields include long tiebacks, low energy reservoirs, small stand-alone developments, and ultra-deepwater opportunities. This paper discusses the current gaps and the technologies required to maximize value from such deepwater fields.
DeepStar has defined deepwater business targets to guide deepwater studies. These typical targets include the following fields:
Keathley - Gulf of Mexico in 10,000 ft of water developed as a hub class facility
Cottontail - marginal four-well field in 5,000 ft of water in the GoM
Coyote - marginal field with six producer (+ two injector) wells in 10,000 ft of water in the GoM
Hyena - marginal field with nine producers (+ six injector) wells in 5,000 ft of water offshore West Africa.
Most equipment and component level processes add some incremental value to a field's development. It is only when multiple technologies are integrated, each contributing its incremental improvement, that step changes in field economics occur. The use of each new technology inherently includes an early user risk factor for the field development. Thus, operator risk management tends to limit numerous new technology utilizations on a development to maintain project risk at an acceptable level. As a result, technology advancement tends to be slow and conservative to protect the massive investment that deepwater developments require.
When we move field development scenarios from 5,000 ft of water to 10,000 ft, some application aspects are common, while other aspects have significant differences.
