Identify the cause of geological movement
|
Challenge ID |
OTM:052 |
||||
1 |
Title |
Identify the cause of geological movement |
||||
2 |
Theme ID |
ON 2.2: Surface Geology Mapping - Structural interpretation |
||||
3 |
Originator of Challenge |
Onshore: OTM |
||||
4 |
Challenge Reviewer / initiator |
Sasol |
||||
|
General description |
Overview of Challenge |
||||
5 |
What is the nature of the challenge? (What is not adequately addressed at present?) |
[Note link with challenge OTM:051] Identification of geological features and fault lines can enable geologists to build hypotheses regarding the cause of geological movement and give inferences as to future events. This can help protect against reservoir changes, or enable operators to use them to their advantage. |
||||
6 |
Thematic information requirements |
1. Obtain detailed topographic information, 13. Monitor ground movement, 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 enable potential future events to be identified, then we can be exposing ourselves to situations where we could not maximise our investment in the infrastructure. Furthermore, if we can build hypot |
||||
8 |
What do you currently do to address this challenge?/ How is this challenge conventionally addressed? |
We currently rely on the outputs from seismic surveys to help identify the cause of geological movement. We also use information gathered in identifying fault lines [see challenge OTM:051], and use this information to influence our decision making proces |
||||
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] |
3 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
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 |
|
||||
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