[en] This paper presents some thoughts on the Production Contractor concept. It starts with an attempt to define the prerequisites for such contractorship to exist and develop, going on to examine the considerations that the oil company and the contractor respectively have to go through, and finally trying to summarize what emerges as the advantages of production contracting. Examples are given to emphasize particular points

[en] This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is written to provide clear direction with respect to roles, responsibilities, obligations, and expectations of each organization identified. It functions as an agreement between the Operations, Construction Projects and Startup Organizations within the Spent Nuclear Fuels Project

[en] The DOE is moving away from environmental restoration management contracts (ERMC) toward more integrated cleanup contracts encompassing waste and nuclear materials management as well as site remediation. The ERMC was an innovation to help DOE break its traditional contracting relationships, but was too narrowly on site remediation and did not properly integrate waste management or nuclear materials handling issues

[en] Oak Ridge National Laboratory Environmental Technology Section has been performing Independent Verification (IV) activities for U.S. DOE sites since 1986. DOE has successfully used IV in the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Program, Decontamination and Decommissioning projects, and Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Projects/Surplus Facilities Management Program. Projects that have undergone IV range from small residential properties to large, industrial sites. The IV process provides a third-party review conducted by an independent organization. The purpose is to verify accuracy and completeness of contractor field measurements and final documentation, evaluate the credibility of procedures, and independently assess post-cleanup conditions versus decommissioning project plans and release criteria. Document reviews of plans, dose models, procedures, and reports are some IV activities undertaken. Independent measurements are also collected during field visits to confirm the contractor's findings. Corrective actions for discrepancies are suggested if necessary. Finally, archival and reporting of the final site environmental conditions for project closeout and certification are completed. The IV contractor reports to DOE headquarters and acts as a quality assurance feedback mechanism. An IV also provides additional assurance that projects are planned, carried out, and documented properly. Decommissioning projects benefit from the IV process by: (1) cost and time savings from early identification of potential problems, (2) assurance that cleanup meets regulatory guidelines, and (3) technical reviews and consultation with experts in field instrumentation, sampling strategy, etc. Some lessons learned from the IV process include avoiding: (1) improper survey techniques, (2) reporting data in units not comparable with guideline values, (3) premature release of surfaces, (4) poor decommissioning project planning, (5) misapplication of release guidelines. 20 refs

[en] The conference paper deals with offshore contract philosophies concerning maintenance. The main philosophies of the contract should be built on the following key success factors: Safe operations and correct quality must be sustained at any time; the maintenance contractor should be viewed as a cooperation partner, not only as a supplier; optimum exploitation of learning curve effects and economies of scale. The paper illustrates the importance of each of them in a contract context with a few recommendations

[en] Over the last 10 years, there has been a steady increase in the number of successful Indigenous Oil Companies exploring for hydrocarbons in the Niger Delta. A number of these companies have already entered into partnership agreements with overseas based oil companies, however, many more are still seeking technical and financial partnership agreements with overseas based oil companies, however, many more are still seeking technical and financial partners to fulfil their licence commitments. The first exploration licence to an Indigenous Company was awarded in the mid eighties. However, it wasn't until the early nineties that the Nigerian Government's intention to privatise the oil industry gathered momentum. Between 1991 and 1993 a number of discretionary awards of acreage from various sedimentary basins in Nigeria were made to Nigerian Indigenous Companies. Many of these companies had little or no previous experience of hydrocarbon exploration.Sixteen of the Indigenous Companies have already reported discoveries in various parts of the delta, either in partnerships with foreign companies or independently. Eight of the Indigenous Companies are producing hydrocarbons. With very little production in the early 90's, the Indigenous Companies now account for over 4.5% of Nigeria's daily production. The government is intent on increasing this percentage through initiatives such as the Marginal Fields re-allocation programme, and the continued award of acreage in traditional license rounds. This paper takes a closer look at the operations and discoveries of two Indigenous Companies Solgas and Summit with the aim of providing an insight into the structure and mode of operation of typical Nigerian Indigenous Oil Companies.The more recent licensing activity in Nigeria includes the current Marginal Fields re-allocation programme and also possible participation of Nigerian companies in the join Development Zone between Nigeria and Sao Tome and Principe. The paper concludes with a definition of 5 different types of partnership opportunities that exist for foreign oil companies with Nigerian Indigenous Companies

No abstract available

[en] Then and the efforts of the National Fuel Alcohol and Portland (ANCAP) in seeking approval of an agreement between this Administration and services and operations PETROBRAS SA Uruguay work for the realization of search for hydrocarbons in Uruguay. The above general agreement aims to conduct a regional study, by integrating seismic and well data, with a view to mounting a stratigraphic and structural characterization of structural and stratigraphic styles by sequence.

[en] Construction projects are growing increasingly large and complicated today both in terms of physical and cost. In practice a project has limited resources, in the form of people, materials, costs, tools, and in the completion of project administration. This requires a CMS (Contruction Management System) starting from the initial phase of the project to the project review phase. The Construction Management Association of America (CMAA) states that there are seven main categories of responsibilities for a construction manage, namely project management planning, price management, time management, quality management, contract administration, safety management, and professional practice. Therefore this study aims to determine whether the contractor implements CMS (Contruction Management System) from the initial phase of the project to the final phase of the project and to analyze the effect of the application of CMS (Contruction Management System) on the smooth construction of a construction project. (paper)

[en] The Department of Energy, Richland Operations (DOE-RL) recently restructured its Hanford work scope, awarding two new contracts over the past several months for a total of three contracts to manage the sites cleanup efforts. DOE-RL met with key contractor personnel prior to and during contract transition to ensure site welding activities had appropriate oversight and maintained code compliance. The transition also provided an opportunity to establish a single site-wide function that would provide welding and materials engineering services to the Hanford site contractors: CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company (CHPRC); Mission Support Alliance (MSA); Washington River Protection Solutions (WRPS); and Washington Closure Hanford (WCH). Over the years, multiple and separate welding programs (amongst the several contractors) existed at the Hanford site leading to inefficiencies resulting from duplication of administrative efforts, maintenance of welding procedures, welder performance certifications, etc. The new, single program eliminates these inefficiencies. The new program, co-managed by two of the sites' new contractors, the CHPRC ('owner' of the program and responsible for construction welding services) and the MSA (provides maintenance welding services), provides more than just the traditional construction and maintenance welding services. Also provided, are welding engineering, specialty welding development/qualification for the closure of radioactive materials containers and materials evaluation/failure analysis. The following describes the new Hanford site welding program.