Understanding the near-surface for explosive charge placement
|
Challenge ID |
OTM:053 |
||||
1 |
Title |
Understanding the near-surface for explosive charge placement |
||||
2 |
Theme ID |
ON 1.1: Seismic Planning - Areas of poor coupling |
||||
3 |
Originator of Challenge |
Onshore: OTM |
||||
4 |
Challenge Reviewer / initiator |
PEMEX |
||||
|
General description |
Overview of Challenge |
||||
5 |
What is the nature of the challenge? (What is not adequately addressed at present?) |
It is necessary to estimate drill depths for explosive charges in seismic surveys. The charge deployer may be required to hand drill up to 12m deep for charge placement and this needs to consider the presence of hard rock below the surface. If planning could identify such near-surface obstacles, this would influence the choice of seismic lines. |
||||
6 |
Thematic information requirements |
11. Determine lithology, mineralogy and structural properties of the near surface, 12. Identify the presence of sub-surface or covered infrastructure, |
||||
7 |
Nature of the challenge - What effect does this challenge have on operations? |
Drilling staff may not be able to drill to the specified depth and this is often not identified until the operation is underway. This can lead to delays or discrepancies within the survey as charges cannot be deployed to the full, design depth. |
||||
8 |
What do you currently do to address this challenge?/ How is this challenge conventionally addressed? |
Currently field visits and shot holes are drilled as part of scouting, but terrain can vary in a small distance meaning that 100m away you can only drill to 5m compared to 10m on the last hole. Speaking with local land owners, talking with Oil and Gas co |
||||
9 |
What kind of solution do you envisage could address this challenge? |
A sub-surface map |
||||
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 is not considered beneficial at present. |
||||
|
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 |
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 |
reservoir footprint |
||||
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