Geological and terrain base maps for development of environmental baseline
|
Challenge ID |
OTM:015 |
||||
1 |
Title |
Geological and terrain base maps for development of environmental baseline |
||||
2 |
Theme ID |
ON 4.1: Environmental monitoring - Baseline historic mapping of environment and ecosystems |
||||
3 |
Originator of Challenge |
Onshore: OTM |
||||
4 |
Challenge Reviewer / initiator |
Ramani, Statoil, PetroSA, Shell, Exxon, Tullow, Petronas |
||||
|
General description |
Overview of Challenge |
||||
5 |
What is the nature of the challenge? (What is not adequately addressed at present?) |
Obtaining an adequate baseline environmental dataset in remote or frontier areas, that have previously been subjected to little or no monitoring, is a time consuming process that can influence the critical path of a project. It is essential that O&G operations are proven to be sustainable and that impact on the natural environment is limited. Unbiased and consistent data is required to prove this. For the results of continuous monitoring to be analysed correctly, they must be judged against an accurate baseline. The longer the time-frame that this baseline information has been collated over, the more natural fluctuations it will encompass, and it will therefore be more representative of the actual environment.
|
||||
6 |
Thematic information requirements |
1. Obtain detailed topographic information, 2. Obtain detailed terrain characterisation, |
||||
7 |
Nature of the challenge - What effect does this challenge have on operations? |
Obtaining baseline information over a large area is time consuming and expensive. We must ground survey parts of the area, but this can lead to bias or unrepresentative results because there is a tendency to target the most important or 'environmentally |
||||
8 |
What do you currently do to address this challenge?/ How is this challenge conventionally addressed? |
Out of date or poorly detailed basemaps are used. |
||||
9 |
What kind of solution do you envisage could address this challenge? |
|
||||
10 |
What is your view on the capability of technology to meet this need? – are you currently using EO tech? If not, why not? |
EO could be a useful complimentary technology |
||||
|
Challenge classification |
|
||||
11 |
Lifecycle stage |
Pre license |
Exp. |
Dev. |
Prod. |
Decom. |
Score from impact quantification [1] |
2 |
2 |
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 |
Environmental |
||||
17 |
Technology Urgency (How quickly does the user need the solution) |
Immediately (0-2 years) |
||||
|
Information requirements |
|
||||
18 |
Update frequency |
Not important |
||||
19 |
Data Currently used |
|
||||
20 |
Spatial resolution |
|
||||
21 |
Thematic accuracy |
|
||||
22 |
Example formats |
|
||||
23 |
Timeliness |
Within six months |
||||
24 |
Geographic Extent |
District area to 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