Submitted:
16 December 2023
Posted:
18 December 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results and Discussion
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Marinina, O.; Kirsanova, N.; Nevskaya, M. Circular Economy Models in Industry: Developing a Conceptual Framework. Energies 2022, 15, 9376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ilyushin, Y.V. Development of a Process Control System for the Production of High-Paraffin Oil. Energies 2022, 15, 6462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ilyushin Yury V., Fetisov V. G., Vasiliev G. G., Leonovich I. A., Müller J. -., Riaz. -., Amir M. H. Development of the automated temperature control system of the main gas pipeline Scientifc Reports. 2023. №13. pp. 1-14. [CrossRef]
- Marinina, O.; Tsvetkova, A.; Vasilev, Y.; Komendantova, N.; Parfenova, A. Evaluating the Downstream Development Strategy of Oil Companies: The Case of Rosneft. Resources 2022, 11, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dmitrieva, D.; Romasheva, N. Sustainable Development of Oil and Gas Potential of the Arctic and Its Shelf Zone: The Role of Innovations. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dabros, A.; Hammond, H.; Pinzon, J.; Pinno, B.; Langor, D. Edge influence of low-impact seismic lines for oil exploration on upland forest vegetation in northern Alberta (Canada). Forest Ecology and Management 2017, 400, 278–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khabibullin, R.R. Increasing the resource-saving technology of ground-based seismic exploration in a wooded area - the Green Seismics project / R. R. Khabibullin, I.V. Leontiev, A.L. Krutov // Scientific Journal of the Russian Gas Society. - 2017. – No. 3. – pp. 29-38. – EDN ZGSJBP.
- Yin, Z.; Zhou, Y.; Li, Y. Seismic Exploration Wireless Sensor System Based on Wi-Fi and LTE. Sensors 2020, 20, 1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Romanov, A.I. High-performance seismic surveys of MOGT 3D with combined recording equipment / A. I. Romanov, A.O. Khukharev // Instruments and systems of exploration geophysics. – 2021. – № 2(69). – Pp. 29-38. – EDN WIZLMM.
- Jorgenson, Janet & Ver Hoef, Jay & Jorgenson, M. (2010). Long-term recovery patterns of arctic tundra after winter seismic exploration. Ecological applications: a publication of the Ecological Society of America. 20. 205-21. [CrossRef]
- Ilyinsky, A.A. Analysis of promising areas for the introduction of remote laser sensing technology for the exploration of oil and gas fields / A. A. Ilyinsky, M.A. Ilchenko // SPbPU Science Week: proceedings of a scientific conference with international participation, the best reports, St. Petersburg, November 18-23, 2019. – St. Petersburg: Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education «Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University», 2019. – pp. 339-343. – EDN RBBKUK.
- Elizarov, V.V. & Bespalov, Victor & Grishkanich, Aleksandr & Kascheev, S.V. & Konopel’ko, L.A. & Makarov, Evgenii & Ruzankina, Yu.S. & Zhevlakov, A.. (2018). Raman LIDAR with Increased Aperture for Geoecological Monitoring. 290-290. [CrossRef]
- Ruzankina, Iuliia & Elizarov, V & Konopel’ko, L & Zhevlakov, A. & Grishkanich, Aleksandr. (2018). Raman lidar with for geoecological monitoring. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 1124. 051036. [CrossRef]
- Cherepovitsyn, A.E. Efficiency of using remote methods of environmental monitoring in the Russian Arctic (on the example of NGK productions) / A. E. Cherepovitsyn, D.M. Metkin // The North and the market: the formation of an economic order. – 2020. – № 4(70). – Pp. 126-139. – EDN NHUWPH. [CrossRef]
- Esterhuyse, Surina. (2018). Identifying the risks and opportunities of unconventional oil and gas extraction using the strategic environmental assessment. Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health. 3. [CrossRef]
- Azqueta, Diego & Delacamara, Gonzalo. (2008). Oil extraction and deforestation: A simulation exercise. Cepal Review. 2008. 57-70. [CrossRef]
- Salter, Edward & Ford, John. (2001). Holistic Environmental Assessment and Offshore Oil Field Exploration and Production. Marine pollution bulletin. 42. 45-58. [CrossRef]
- Cherepovitsyn, Aleksei & Tcvetkov, Pavel & Evseeva, Olga. (2021). Critical analysis of methodological approaches to assessing sustainability of arctic oil and gas projects. Journal of Mining Institute. 249. 463-479. [CrossRef]
- Al-Hawas, Ahmed & Al-Harbi, Fahad & Amminudin, Kamarul. (2023). Small Scale Projects Planning Best Practices in the Oil and Gas Sector. [CrossRef]
- Shabanova, D.N. Adoption of eco-oriented management decisions in oil and gas companies based on a causal model / D. N. Shabanova // Molodaya Neft: Collection of scientific articles of the All-Russian Youth Scientific and Technical Conference of the Oil and gas industry, Krasnoyarsk, May 15-17, 2015 / Responsible for the release: O.P. Kalyakina. – Krasnoyarsk: Siberian Federal University, 2015. – pp. 176-181. – EDN ULNLAT.
- Popescu, C.; Gheorghiu, S.A. Economic Analysis and Generic Algorithm for Optimizing the Investments Decision-Making Process in Oil Field Development. Energies 2021, 14, 6119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Filimonova, I.V. Development of theoretical and methodological foundations of geological and economic assessment of hydrocarbon resources / I. V. Filimonova // Resource and institutional conditions for the formation of an innovative economy: a collection of scientific papers / responsible editors: A.V. Alekseev, L.K. Kazantseva; Institute of Economics and Industrial Production Organization of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. – Novosibirsk: Publishing House of the Institute of Economics and Industrial Production Organization of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2015. – pp. 140-157. – EDN UIOMRD.
- Nazarov, V.I. On improving the methodology of geological and economic assessment of oil and gas resources / V. I. Nazarov // Oil and gas Geology. Theory and practice. – 2013. – Vol. 8, No. 3. – S. 12. – EDN PKCQKS.
- Nazarov V.I., & Medvedeva L.V. (2016). Methods of quantitative assessment of factors affecting the efficiency of exploration. Oil and gas geology. Theory and Practice, 11 (2), 16.
- Cherepovitsyn, A.; Metkin, D.; Gladilin, A. An Algorithm of Management Decision-Making Regarding the Feasibility of Investing in Geological Studies of Forecasted Hydrocarbon Resources. Resources 2018, 7, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tugan, Murat & Sinayuc, Caglar. (2018). A new fully probabilistic methodology and a software for assessing uncertainties and managing risks in shale gas projects at any maturity stage. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering. 168. [CrossRef]
- Appendix 1 to Order No. 417 of the Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation dated July 7, 2020 «Order on Approval of the Rules for the Use of Forests for Geological Exploration, Exploration and Extraction of Minerals and a List of Cases of forest use for the Purpose of Geological Exploration, exploration and Extraction of minerals without providing a forest plot, with or without the establishment of an easement» // Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation (accessed on 9 November 2023) (In Russian).
- Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated 05/22/2007 No. 310 (as amended on 11/29/2021) «On the rates of payment for a unit of forest resources and the rates of payment for a unit of area of a forest plot owned by the Federal Government» (accessed on 9 November 2023) (In Russian).
- Metkin, D.M. Improvement of methods for evaluating the effectiveness of oil and gas exploration projects in the northern territories / D. M. Metkin, O.V. Zhukov, A.A. Temnikov // North and market: formation of an economic order. – 2023. – Vol. 26, No. 1(79). – pp. 120-132. – EDN VPOFRQ. [CrossRef]
- Sui, Yang & Ding, Rui & Wang, Hanqing. (2020). A novel approach for occupational health and safety and environment risk assessment for nuclear power plant construction project. Journal of Cleaner Production. 258. 120945. [CrossRef]
- Abdolkhaninezhad, T.; Monavari, M.; Khorasani, N.; Robati, M.; Farsad, F. Analysis Indicators of Health-Safety in the Risk Assessment of Landfill with the Combined Method of Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Making and Bow Tie Model. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weiland, L.; Green-Harrison, T.; Ketcheson, S. The Influence of Seismic Lines on Wildfire Potential in the Boreal Region of Northern Alberta, Canada. Forests 2023, 14, 1574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Makov, V.M. Risk assessment of investment projects of an oil company / V. M. Makov // Bulletin of Economics and Management. - 2016. – No. 3. – pp. 44-49. – EDN YKSIPT.
- Mednikov M.D., & Dombrovsky A.V. (2008). Fuzzy multiple analysis in anti-crisis management. π-Economy, (2 (54)), 315-321.
- Resolution of the Government of the Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug – Yugra dated October 9, 2013, No. 425-p about the state program Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug – Yugra «Development of forestry and timber industry KhantyMmansiysk Autonomous Okrug – Yugra for 2016-2020» (accessed on 15 May 2023) (In Russian).
- State report (Text) — Rosnedra, 2021, SBR of the Russian Federation, data from FSBI Rosgeolfond (accessed on 15 May 2023) (In Russian).
- National environmental rating of the regions of Russia. Russian public organization «Green Patrol». Available online: https://зеленыйпатруль.рф/ (accessed on 19 May 2023). (In Russian).
- Regional statistics, National set of SDG indicators. Federal State Statistics Service. Available online: https://rosstat.gov.ru/ (accessed on 19 May 2023). (In Russian).
- United Nations. Department of Economic and Social Affairs Sustainable Development. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/goals (accessed on 19 May 2023). (In English).



| Item No. | Name of the indicator, [units of measure] | Value of the indicator | |
| 1. Ecological and economic indicators for carrying out work on the site | |||
|
Traditional areal seismic survey |
Green seismic survey | ||
| 1.1 | Area of work along the contour of excitation points, [km2] | 304 | |
| 1.2 | Area of work along the contour of reception points, [km2] | 516 | |
| 1.3 | Length of seismic profiles (forest clearings), [km] | 2,180 | |
| 1.4 | Length of crossline profiles, [km] | 350 | 255 |
| 1.5 | Length of inline profiles, [km] | 350 | 255 |
| 1.6 | Profile width, [m] | 4 | 1.5 |
| 1.7 | Rent of forest land, [rub/ha] | 8,813 | |
| 1.8 | Area of forest land, [ha] | 1,761 | 1,286 |
| 1.9 | Volume of cut wood, [m3] | 172,800 | 126,203 |
| 1.10 | Cost of wood, [rub. for 1 m3] | 109 | |
| 1.11 | Average forest density, [pcs/ha] | 2,000 | |
| 1.12 | Degree of forest cover of the territory, [%] | 80 | |
| 1.13 | Area of land subject to reforestation work, [ha] | 1,023 | 747 |
| 1.14 | Cost of reforestation work, [rub/ha] | 470,000 | |
| 2. Characteristics of the raw hydrocarbon potential of the licensed subsoil area | |||
| 2.1 | Volume of predicted resources, [thousand tons] | 720 | |
| 2.2 | Number of prospect wells, [units] | 1 | |
| 2.3 | Prospect well depth, [m] | 2,750 | |
| Item No. | Name of the indicator, [units of measure] | Equation | Characteristics of indicators |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Ecological efficiency indicators | |||
| 1.1 | Volume of wood [m3] | V1 = V0 – Vrs (1), where V1 is the change in wood volumes; V0 is the volume of wood cut down when using traditional geological exploration technology; Vrs is the volume of wood cut down when using resource-saving technology. |
The indicator characterizes the change in wood volumes that can be achieved because of the use of resource-saving technology for geological exploration in forested areas. |
| 1.2 | Area of forest land within LA [ha] | R1 = R0 – Rrs (2), where R1 is the change in the area of leased forest lands; R0 - area of leased forest land using traditional technology; Rrs is the area of leased forest land using resource-saving technology |
The indicator characterizes the amount of change in leased forests that can be achieved because of the use of resource-saving technology during geological exploration. |
| 1.3 | Scope of reforestation work [ha] | F1 = F0 – Frs (3), where F1 is the change in area for reforestation; F0 - volumes of reforestation work using traditional technology; Frs - volumes of reforestation work using resource-saving technology. |
The indicator characterizes the magnitude of the change in the necessary reforestation work [27] after geological exploration using resource-saving technology. |
| 1.4 | Number of trees [trees] saved | N = D * S * (R0 – Rrs) (4), where N is the number of preserved trees in the study area; D – average forest density (density of forest plantations) (pcs/Ha), determined depending on avg. distances between trees, height and completeness of the forest stand, etc.; S – degree of forest cover of the territory, (%) is determined by the ratio of the forested area of land to the total area of the license area. |
The indicator characterizes the number of trees saved from felling due to a decrease in forest lands during geological exploration using resource-saving technology. |
| 2. Economic efficiency indicators | |||
| 2.1 | Savings from deforestation [RUB] | EV = (R0 – Rrs) * C (5), where C is the cost of cutting down 1 hectare of forest. |
The indicator characterizes the amount of money that a company will save when cutting down forests and carrying out geological exploration work. |
| 2.2 | Savings on forest land rental [RUB] | ER = (R0 – Rrs) * P (6), where P is the price for renting forest land depending on the region of work and is determined in accordance with [28]. |
The indicator characterizes the amount of money that the company will save when renting land for geological exploration. |
| 2.3 | Savings on wood fees monetary units [RUB] | Ew = (V0 – Vrs) * W (7), where W is the cost of wood (rubles per 1 m3) and depends on the type of forest plantation and the distance of its removal, determined in accordance with [22]. |
The indicator characterizes the amount of money that the company will save when determining the payment for felled trees to ensure geological exploration. |
| 2.4 | Savings on reforestation work [RUB] | EF = (F0 – Frs) * R (8), where R is the cost of reforestation work (rubles per 1 hectare) and is determined in accordance with the contract depending on the conditions of the area, its geographical location and type of work. |
The indicator characterizes the amount of money that the company will save when assessing the implementation of reforestation work. |
| 2.5 | Integral economic effect [RUB] | E = EV + ER + Ew + EF (9) |
This indicator shows how much money is saved by using resource-saving technology for geological investigation while still maintaining the natural environment. |
| Item | Appraisal | Value | ∆ | Economy [thousand rub] |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Deforestation [ha] | post-facto | 1,761 | 475 | 47,500 |
| greenfield | 1,286 | |||
| Volume of wood [m3] | post-facto | 172,800 | 46,597 | 5,079 |
| greenfield | 126,203 | |||
| Area of forest land within LA [ha] | post-facto | 1,761 | 475 | 4,174 |
| greenfield | 1,286 | |||
| Scope of reforestation work [ha] | post-facto | 1,023 | 276 | 131,362 |
| greenfield | 747 | |||
| Total savings | 188,115 | |||
| Item No. | Name of the indicator | Traditional technology | Resource saving technology | Variation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| +/- | % | ||||
| 1 | NPV [mio rub] | 320.5 | 327.2 | 6.7 | 1.02 |
| 2 | Internal rate of return [%] | 18.7 | 18.9 | 0.2 | 1.01 |
| 3 | Net Present Value of Returns | 1.46 | 1.50 | 0.04 | 2.74 |
| 4 | Payback period [years] | 4.4 | 4.1 | -0.3 | -6.8 |
| 5 | Expenditure on oil and gas exploration [mio rub] |
592 | 403.9 | -188.1 | -31.8 |
| Sphere of display | Risks | |
|---|---|---|
| Traditional technology | Resource saving technology | |
| 1. Geological risks | 1.1 Reduced success rate of exploratory drilling | |
| 1.2 Unconfirmability of the value of hydrocarbon potential reserves | ||
| 1.3 Geological features of the license area (complex geological structures, obstacles to drilling) | ||
| 1.4 Erroneous interpretation of geological data obtained during research | ||
| 2. Ecological risks | 2.1 Negative impact on the natural environment (deforestation) | |
| 2.2 Forest fires [32] | ||
| 2.3 Increased load on the soil due to the operation of heavy equipment | - | |
| 2.4 Increased CO2 emissions | - | |
| 2.5 Impact on surface and groundwater | - | |
| 3. Production risks | 3.1 Injury to personnel during topographic and geodetic work, incl. felling | |
| 3.2 Personnel health (working in low temperatures) | ||
| 4. Technological risks | 4.1 Unreliability of technology during geological exploration due to equipment failure | |
| 4.2 Technical risks associated with the operation of transport and technical equipment in impassable taiga, under difficult weather conditions | ||
| 5. Economic risks | 5.1 Reducing the volume of seismic exploration while reducing the cost of hydrocarbons on the market | |
| 5 2 Delays in work completion, equipment downtime | ||
| 5.3 High volumes of investment in equipment production | ||
| Probability of a risk event (y) | The degree of influence of the risk event on the project (x) | ||
| Weak (0–0.4) |
Medium (0.4–0.8) | Strong (>0.8) | |
| High (>0.8) | Medium | High | Critical |
| Medium (0.4–0.8) | Medium | High | High |
| Low (0–0.4) | Low | Medium | Medium |
| Name of risks | Traditional technology | Resource saving technology | ||||
| Potential damage consequences from the risk (x) | Probability of risk occurrence (y) | Potential damage consequences from the risk (x) | Probability of risk occurrence (y) | |||
| Ecology | E1 | Negative impact on the natural environment (deforestation) | 0.75 | 0.97 | 0.73 | 0.25 |
| E2 | Forest fires | 0.42 | 0.75 | 0.40 | 0.75 | |
| E3 | Increased load on the soil due to the operation of heavy equipment | 0.71 | 0.73 | - | - | |
| E4 | Increased CO2 emissions | 0.42 | 0.51 | - | - | |
| E5 | Impact on surface and groundwater | 0.63 | 0.67 | - | - | |
| Production | P6 | Injury to personnel during topographic and geodetic work, incl. felling | 0.96 | 0.79 | 0.93 | 0.20 |
| P7 | Personnel health (working in low temperatures) | 0.63 | 0.57 | 0.60 | 0.57 | |
| Technology | T8 | Unreliability of technology during geological exploration due to equipment failure | 0.88 | 0.10 | 0.80 | 0.31 |
| T9 | Technical risks associated with the operation of transport and technical equipment in impassable taiga, under difficult weather conditions | 0.63 | 0.78 | 0.53 | 0.24 | |
| Ecology | ||||
| x1 | x2 | x3 | x4 | |
| Region/Indicator | Environmental rating (qualitative indicator) | Ratio of the area of reforestation and afforestation to the area of cut down and dead forest plantations [%] | Emissions of pollutants into the atmospheric air from stationary sources [thousands. tons] | Expenses on environmental protection [mio rub] |
| KHMAO-Yugra | 50.00 | 73.00 | 1,142.00 | 29,896.00 |
| Maximum value for Russia | 76.00 | 1,657.80 | 2,540.00 | 55,661.00 |
| Minimum value for Russia | 43.00 | 23.60 | 2.00 | 63.00 |
| Factor | Value of xii | Normalized value of xii |
|---|---|---|
| x1 | 50.00 | 0.212 |
| x2 | 73.00 | 0.970 |
| x3 | 1,142.00 | 0.449 |
| x4 | 29,896.00 | 0.463 |
| Range of values, x (y) | Membership function | |
|---|---|---|
| 0<= x (y) <=0.167 | X1, Y1 (Very low) | 1 |
| 0.167<x (y) <0.333 | X1, Y1 | µ1 |
| X2, Y2 (Low) | 1-µ1 = µ2 | |
| 0.333<= x (y) <0.5 | X2, Y2 | µ2 |
| X3, Y3 (Average) | 1-µ2 = µ3 | |
| 0.5<= x (y) <0.667 | X3, Y3 | µ3 |
| X4, Y4 (High) | 1-µ3 = µ4 | |
| 0.667< x (y) <0.833 | X4, Y4 | µ4 |
| X5, Y5 (Very high) | 1-µ4 = µ5 | |
| 0.833< x (y) <=1 | X5, Y5 | 1 |
| Factor | Subset scale | Significance level | ||||
| very low | low | average | high | very high | ||
| x1 | 0.72 | 0.28 | 0.1 | |||
| x2 | 1 | 0.4 | ||||
| x3 | 0.30 | 0.70 | 0.2 | |||
| x4 | 0.22 | 0.78 | 0.3 | |||
| classificator level | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
| Factor | Subset scale (weighted) | ||||
| very low | low | average | high | very high | |
| x1 | 0.07 | 0.03 | - | - | - |
| x2 | - | - | - | - | 0.40 |
| x3 | - | 0.06 | 0.14 | - | - |
| x4 | - | 0.07 | 0.23 | - | - |
| Sum | 0.07 | 0.15 | 0.37 | - | 0.40 |
| nodal points | 0.165 | 0.332 | 0.499 | 0.666 | 0.833 |
| y | 0.012 | 0.051 | 0.186 | - | 0.333 |
| y integral | 0.583 | ||||
| Set of y values | Level of risk | Description |
| 0.000-0.333 | Very low level | - the highest level of environmental friendliness of the region: high level of novelty of environmental projects, activity of public organizations, absence of environmental incidents; - large volumes of reforestation work in the region, exceeding the figures for cut down plantings; - carrying out special programs for afforestation in the region; - virtually no CO2 emissions; - serious volumes of investments aimed at environmental protection and rational use of natural resources from local and federal budgets. |
| 0.167-0.500 | Low level | - the intensity of the processes of creation, implementation and practical use of environmental innovations in the region is above the national average; - afforestation and reforestation cover more than the area of the dead forest; - low level of CO2 emissions; - environmental protection costs in the region are significantly higher than the Russian average. |
| 0.333-0.667 | Medium level | - average social and environmental indicators for Russia; - the reforestation area is equal to the clearing area; - greenhouse gas emissions are normal and do not exceed the average for Russia; - funds are spent annually on environmental protection, but do not adequately cover damage from negative impacts. |
| 0.500-0.833 | High level | - reforestation work does not cover the full volume of cut down and dead forest plantations; - CO2 emissions meet the standards, but are higher than the national average; - innovative environmental projects are rarely implemented in the region, and there is little activity in environmental protection measures; - insignificant investments of companies and budgets of various levels in the restoration and protection of the natural environment. |
| 0.667-1.000 | Very high level | - low state of ecology in the subject: environmentally significant events, incidents and problems; - there are no reforestation works; - high greenhouse gas emissions; - there are practically no investments in environmental protection from the budgets of the region and the Russian Federation. |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).