Child pages
  • OTM-053: Understanding the near-surface for explosive charge placement

 

 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