Ecosystem valuation of potential site
|
Challenge ID |
OTM:030 |
||||
1 |
Title |
Ecosystem valuation of potential site |
||||
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 |
PEMEX, Statoil, Eni, Sasol, Tullow, Petronas, Chevron |
||||
|
General description |
Overview of Challenge |
||||
5 |
What is the nature of the challenge? (What is not adequately addressed at present?) |
During the prelicensing phase it is important that we have an understanding of the ecosystem value of possible development sites. At this stage, the information does not have to be extremely detailed because we are looking over large areas at a high level.
|
||||
6 |
Thematic information requirements |
3. Obtain detailed vegetation information, 4. Obtain detailed land-use information, 6. Identify inland water bodies and determine water quality, 10. Fauna and presence and patterns, |
||||
7 |
Nature of the challenge - What effect does this challenge have on operations? |
Having this information allows us to develop a monetary value for the cost of ecosystem loss (as a result of operations) and a timescale for recovery following decommissioning. It is helpful if we can get this information quickly for large and remote a |
||||
8 |
What do you currently do to address this challenge?/ How is this challenge conventionally addressed? |
On-the-ground surveys |
||||
9 |
What kind of solution do you envisage could address this challenge? |
Medium resolution land cover products based on EO data |
||||
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 e.g. through estimation of biomass (leaf area index, etc.), |
||||
|
Challenge classification |
|
||||
11 |
Lifecycle stage |
Pre license |
Exp. |
Dev. |
Prod. |
Decom. |
Score from impact quantification [1] |
4 |
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 |
depending on sensor and application |
||||
19 |
Data Currently used |
|
||||
20 |
Spatial resolution |
|
||||
21 |
Thematic accuracy |
80-90% |
||||
22 |
Example formats |
Standardized geo-spatial formats (e.g. shapefile, geotiff or KML) |
||||
23 |
Timeliness |
|
||||
24 |
Geographic Extent |
|
||||
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