No abstract

Managing the scope of the “Properties” and “Performances” domains plays a fundamental role in the scheduling and controlling of the wide variety of variables and processes involved in any project, for the purpose of increasing the quality of outputs, which leads to time and budget-saving. Notably, in monument conservation projects, “scope management” is a vital factor targeted at maintaining historical parameter values and accuracy in the number of interferences and occupations on sites. Nowadays, as urbanization speeds up unprecedently, the territories of these heritage sites have been demolished or have lost their place on the World Heritage List. Undoubtedly, the existence of such critical conditions makes it increasingly necessary to apply scope management methods to preserve such archaeological and historic sites across the world. The purpose of this article is to propose a “Comprehensive and Regular Systematic Schedule” for the purpose of monument conservation via the use of scope management, based on the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS)—specifically the Burra Charter (1981). The results of this research include hierarchical levels of management processes which consider all the effective variables, both the tangible and intangible elements (independent factors) and the other weaknesses and opportunities of the project in order to determine the scope of the required operations, which must be scheduled based on historical sites’ conservation charters. In this way, in addition to reviving a cultural landscape’s (cultural heritage or site) essential and valuable parts, unnecessary changes can be avoided.

During the production from shale oil formations, the produced water has been dedicated to different procedures such as chemical enhanced oil recoveries, drilling mud making (e.g., for various purposes of lubrication and cooling) and hydraulic fracturing. One of the main challenges of wastewater treatment corresponds to (TDS) total dissolved solids. To measure the required water needed for different processes, it is necessary to proceed with every step saving and then make an average to calculate the required freshwater. In this regard, we have selected five different oil wells with the same rock and reservoir characteristics. SOW#3 has the highest rate of treatment (26%) and SOW#1 has the minimum treated wastewater during hydraulic fracturing processes. It corresponds to the large volume of solid and oil particles, which remained in the treatment devices. However, it is observed that SOW#1 has the highest rate of treatment (32%) and SOW#4 has the minimum treated wastewater (14%) in chemical enhanced oil recovery methods. On the other hand, SOW#3 has the highest rate of treatment (27%) and SOW#5 has the minimum treated wastewater from drilling mud preparation and other well facilities. It is observed that SOW#1 has the highest rate of treatment (27%) and SOW#5 has the minimum saving water during hydraulic fracturing processes, SOW#1 has the highest rate of treatment (38%) and SOW#4 has the minimum saving water (9%).

No abstract