Identification of fault lines
|
Challenge ID |
OTM:051 |
||||
1 |
Title |
Identification of fault lines |
||||
2 |
Theme ID |
ON 2.2: Surface Geology Mapping - Structural interpretation |
||||
3 |
Originator of Challenge |
Onshore: OTM |
||||
4 |
Challenge Reviewer / initiator |
PetroSA, Sasol, Exxon, Tullow, Petronas |
||||
|
General description |
Overview of Challenge |
||||
5 |
What is the nature of the challenge? (What is not adequately addressed at present?) |
Identification of geological features can give reasonable and early indications of likely reservoir locations. These are more easily seen in clear or deserted regions but areas of forested / agricultural land where the surface is covered or artificially modified, it is difficult to see these |
||||
6 |
Thematic information requirements |
1. Obtain detailed topographic information, 11. Determine lithology, mineralogy and structural properties of the near surface, 14. Obtain detailed imagery of the surface, |
||||
7 |
Nature of the challenge - What effect does this challenge have on operations? |
If we are failing to identify geological indicators that suggest the presence of a reservoir then we have missed an opportunity. If our competitors do this better than us the impact to our business could be huge. |
||||
8 |
What do you currently do to address this challenge?/ How is this challenge conventionally addressed? |
Online imagery can be used in clear areas. Geological maps can be used on a broader scale with inference to hills and larger structures. There is no solution that gives us the accuracy we would like |
||||
9 |
What kind of solution do you envisage could address this challenge? |
|
||||
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 has applicability where the structure is exposed. Forest/woodland / agricultural and most wetlands would mask the structure. |
||||
|
Challenge classification |
|
||||
11 |
Lifecycle stage |
Pre license |
Exp. |
Dev. |
Prod. |
Decom. |
Score from impact quantification [1] |
4 |
4 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
12 |
Climate classification |
NOT CLIMATE SPECIFIC, but not suitable in highly vegetated areas |
||||
13 |
Geographic context/restrictions |
Generic onshore (Unspecified) |
||||
14 |
Topographic classification / Offshore classification |
Generic onshore (Unspecified) |
||||
15 |
Seasonal variations |
Any season |
||||
16 |
Impact Area |
Strategic decision enabler |
||||
17 |
Technology Urgency (How quickly does the user need the solution) |
Immediately (0-2 years) |
||||
|
Information requirements |
|
||||
18 |
Update frequency |
Snap shot requirement |
||||
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