Flagging environmentally sensitive areas prior to seismic surveys
|
Challenge ID |
OTM:013 |
||||
1 |
Title |
Flagging environmentally sensitive areas prior to seismic surveys |
||||
2 |
Theme ID |
ON 1.3: Seismic Planning - Identification of environmentally sensitive areas |
||||
3 |
Originator of Challenge |
Onshore: OTM |
||||
4 |
Challenge Reviewer / initiator |
PEMEX, Ramani, PetroSA, Shell, Eni, Exxon, Tullow, Petronas, Chevron |
||||
|
General description |
Overview of Challenge |
||||
5 |
What is the nature of the challenge? (What is not adequately addressed at present?) |
Planning the layout of a seismic survey/ seismic lines needs to take into consideration the surrounding environment. Flagging of environmentally significant areas allows for the selection of appropriate seismic lines and methodology e.g. thumpers vs. explosives What is the impact of the seismic line, what damage could be done to the existing environment, what steps can be made to mitigate this, how is it likely to recover. Sometimes we enter governmental protected areas (ie national parks) and permits will be needed. To what extent the survey will encroach is important to understand. |
||||
6 |
Thematic information requirements |
2. Obtain detailed terrain characterisation, 3. Obtain detailed vegetation information, 10. Fauna and presence and patterns 14. Obtain detailed imagery of the surface, |
||||
7 |
Nature of the challenge - What effect does this challenge have on operations? |
Methodology to be adopted needs to be sympathetic to the surrounding environment to avoid breaching environmental legislation / targets. By not meeting these, the operation may reflect poorly on the company and result in licenses not being granted, or b |
||||
8 |
What do you currently do to address this challenge?/ How is this challenge conventionally addressed? |
Base maps (which are often inaccurate), together with on-the-ground surveys. If permission is not granted or delayed can be go round the area or shoot another part first. |
||||
9 |
What kind of solution do you envisage could address this challenge? |
Better mapping to enable remote identification to be undertaken, and to facilitate environmental impact assessments. Very high to medium resolution EO data to monitor environmentally sensitive areas. |
||||
10 |
What is your view on the capability of technology to meet this need? – are you currently using EO tech? If not, why not? |
|
||||
|
Challenge classification |
|
||||
11 |
Lifecycle stage |
Pre license |
Exp. |
Dev. |
Prod. |
Decom. |
Score from impact quantification [1] |
2 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
12 |
Climate classification |
NOT CLIMATE SPECIFIC |
||||
13 |
Geographic context/restrictions |
Generic onshore (Unspecified) |
||||
14 |
Topographic classification / Offshore classification |
Generic onshore (Unspecified) |
||||
15 |
Seasonal variations |
Any season |
||||
16 |
Impact Area |
Environment, HSE |
||||
17 |
Technology Urgency (How quickly does the user need the solution) |
Immediately (0-2 years) |
||||
|
Information requirements |
|
||||
18 |
Update frequency |
Varies, depending on length of survey. Typically snap shot/ monthly |
||||
19 |
Data Currently used |
|
||||
20 |
Spatial resolution |
|
||||
21 |
Thematic accuracy |
|
||||
22 |
Example formats |
|
||||
23 |
Timeliness |
Within a month |
||||
24 |
Geographic Extent |
Reservoir footprint |
||||
25 |
Existing standards |
|
[1] Impact quantification scores: 4 – Critical/ enabling; 3 – Significant/ competitive advantage; 2 – Important but non-essential; 1 – Nice to have; 0 – No impact, need satisfied with existing technology
There is no content with the specified labels