Selection of development sites
|
|
Challenge ID |
OTM:039 |
||||
|
1 |
Title |
Selection of development sites |
||||
|
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 |
PEMEX, Statoil, Sasol |
||||
|
|
General description |
Overview of Challenge |
||||
|
5 |
What is the nature of the challenge? (What is not adequately addressed at present?) |
Selecting an appropriate development site for an onshore facility is a complex task. The site needs to be accessible, safe, connect to local O&G infrastructure (if any) and have limited impact on the environment. |
||||
|
6 |
Thematic information requirements |
1. Obtain detailed topographic information, 3. Obtain detailed vegetation information, 4. Obtain detailed land-use information, 5. Identify location and condition of transport infrastructure, 9. Obtain detailed imagery of assets, 11. Determine li |
||||
|
7 |
Nature of the challenge - What effect does this challenge have on operations? |
Reduction in planning costs and potentially better located facilities, thereby (potentially) reducing opex, improving HSE etc. |
||||
|
8 |
What do you currently do to address this challenge?/ How is this challenge conventionally addressed? |
existing mapping and recorded data, but this rarely is sufficient |
||||
|
9 |
What kind of solution do you envisage could address this challenge? |
Very high to medium resolution EO data to derive land cover and land use information. Resolution depending 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] |
3 |
1 |
3 |
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 |
reduction in planning costs |
||||
|
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 |
Reference data - timeliness not important |
||||
|
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