Identification of seasonal obstructions to logistics activity
|
Challenge ID |
OTM:016 |
||||
1 |
Title |
Identification of seasonal obstructions to logistics activity |
||||
2 |
Theme ID |
ON 5.3: Logistics planning and operations - Facility siting, pipeline routing and roads development |
||||
3 |
Originator of Challenge |
Onshore: OTM |
||||
4 |
Challenge Reviewer / initiator |
Statoil, PetroSA, Eni, Exxon |
||||
|
General description |
Overview of Challenge |
||||
5 |
What is the nature of the challenge? (What is not adequately addressed at present?) |
In many climates and geographies there can be significant seasonal differences in the landscape. This may consist of the presence (or not) of large water bodies, vegetation and associated habitat, changes in terrain character, etc.). |
||||
6 |
Thematic information requirements |
4. Obtain detailed land-use information, 5. Identify location and condition of transport infrastructure, 8. Identify the presence of UXO, 12. Identify the presence of sub-surface or covered infrastructure, |
||||
7 |
Nature of the challenge - What effect does this challenge have on operations? |
Not being aware of how the landscape changes with each season can have a significant impact on our operations, For example, we can find ourselves isolated or unable to access large areas for surveying or seismic acquisition because of the presence of wat |
||||
8 |
What do you currently do to address this challenge?/ How is this challenge conventionally addressed? |
Seasonal mapping if it exists. Otherwise we undertake ground-surveys looking at both the local environment, and speaking to local communities. |
||||
9 |
What kind of solution do you envisage could address this challenge? |
Very high to medium resolution EO data to monitor land cover and water bodies and their changes.
Resolution depends on covered area and size of analysis objective. |
||||
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 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
|
12 |
Climate classification |
NOT CLIMATE SPECIFIC |
||||
13 |
Geographic context/restrictions |
Generic onshore (Unspecified) |
||||
14 |
Topographic classification / Offshore classification |
Generic onshore (Unspecified) |
||||
15 |
Seasonal variations |
Wet season focus |
||||
16 |
Impact Area |
Operational cost reduction |
||||
17 |
Technology Urgency (How quickly does the user need the solution) |
Immediately (0-2 years) |
||||
|
Information requirements |
|
||||
18 |
Update frequency |
As close to real-time as possible |
||||
19 |
Data Currently used |
Conventional mapping and data from ground surveys |
||||
20 |
Spatial resolution |
Conventional mapping and data from ground surveys |
||||
21 |
Thematic accuracy |
|
||||
22 |
Example formats |
|
||||
23 |
Timeliness |
Within a day |
||||
24 |
Geographic Extent |
District area |
||||
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