Assessing the social impact of construction work
|
Challenge ID |
OTM:035 |
||||
1 |
Title |
Assessing the social impact of construction work |
||||
2 |
Theme ID |
ON 4.2: Environmental monitoring - Continuous monitoring of changes throughout the lifecycle |
||||
3 |
Originator of Challenge |
Onshore: OTM |
||||
4 |
Challenge Reviewer / initiator |
PEMEX, Statoil, Shell, Chevron |
||||
|
General description |
Overview of Challenge |
||||
5 |
What is the nature of the challenge? (What is not adequately addressed at present?) |
Monitoring the social impact of O&G development e.g. displacement of communities/ tribes, changes in land use or impacts caused by construction activity |
||||
6 |
Thematic information requirements |
4. Obtain detailed land-use information, |
||||
7 |
Nature of the challenge - What effect does this challenge have on operations? |
The construction site and its impact on the environment can be relatively intense during the early E&P phases, particularly when the site is being constructed. This may impacts both the immediate, local society in or distant societies such as those along |
||||
8 |
What do you currently do to address this challenge?/ How is this challenge conventionally addressed? |
This manly done by field surveys which is costly, labour intensive and because it's "point-based", the context of the larger ecosystem can be misunderstood. |
||||
9 |
What kind of solution do you envisage could address this challenge? |
EO-based products can provide consistent, timely information on social impacts of O&G development. High to very high resolution land cover products based on EO data would be useful for analysis of areas in the close proximity to particular assets. For la |
||||
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 providing information on population density, building inventory, exposure mapping, settlement mapping and site location |
||||
|
Challenge classification |
|
||||
11 |
Lifecycle stage |
Pre license |
Exp. |
Dev. |
Prod. |
Decom. |
Score from impact quantification [1] |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
|
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 |
Social impact |
||||
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 |
within six months |
||||
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