Identifying soft ground for seismic vehicles
|
|
Challenge ID |
OTM:045 |
||||
|
1 |
Title |
Identifying soft ground for seismic vehicles |
||||
|
2 |
Theme ID |
ON 1.2: Seismic Planning - Identification of adverse terrain for trafficability |
||||
|
3 |
Originator of Challenge |
Onshore: OTM |
||||
|
4 |
Challenge Reviewer / initiator |
PEMEX, Statoil, Exxon, Tullow, Petronas |
||||
|
|
General description |
Overview of Challenge |
||||
|
5 |
What is the nature of the challenge? (What is not adequately addressed at present?) |
We need to identify soft ground to avoid seismic vehicles getting stuck |
||||
|
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? |
Soft ground not only reduces the accuracy of our seismic output, but also delays operations by slowing the vehicles. |
||||
|
8 |
What do you currently do to address this challenge?/ How is this challenge conventionally addressed? |
Online imagery, ground survey teams |
||||
|
9 |
What kind of solution do you envisage could address this challenge? |
As well as information relating to terrain characterisation, analysing topographical data can also be useful since soft ground normally occurs in surface depressions. |
||||
|
10 |
What is your view on the capability of technology to meet this need? – are you currently using EO tech? If not, why not? |
|
||||
|
|
Challenge classification |
|
||||
|
11 |
Lifecycle stage |
Pre license |
Exp. |
Dev. |
Prod. |
Decom. |
|
Score from impact quantification [1] |
2 |
3 |
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 |
Operational cost reduction |
||||
|
17 |
Technology Urgency (How quickly does the user need the solution) |
Immediately (0-2 years) |
||||
|
|
Information requirements |
|
||||
|
18 |
Update frequency |
Specific stage in lifecycle |
||||
|
19 |
Data Currently used |
|
||||
|
20 |
Spatial resolution |
|
||||
|
21 |
Thematic accuracy |
|
||||
|
22 |
Example formats |
|
||||
|
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