|
Challenge ID |
OTM:056 |
||||
1 |
Title |
Locating repeater stations for communications infrastructure |
||||
2 |
Theme ID |
ON 5.2: Logistics planning and operations - Support to surveying crews for planning surveys and H&S |
||||
3 |
Originator of Challenge |
Onshore: OTM |
||||
4 |
Challenge Reviewer / initiator |
Petronas |
||||
|
General description |
Overview of Challenge |
||||
5 |
What is the nature of the challenge? (What is not adequately addressed at present?) |
We need to address issues relating to radio communication infrastructure. These include aspects such as planning road access to communication infrastructure, planning bulldozer lines, identifying line-of-sight issues, and locating repeater stations. We do not want to leave a network of scars through forested areas and we want our E&P activity to be as environmentally sensitive as possible. A way of ascertaining elevation characteristics that could subsequently limit the detrimental aspects of our operations would be very valuable |
||||
6 |
Thematic information requirements |
1. Obtain detailed topographic information, 3. Obtain detailed vegetation information, 5. Identify location and condition of transport infrastructure, |
||||
7 |
Nature of the challenge - What effect does this challenge have on operations? |
Line clearance costs can be very high, and notoriously difficult to maintain. Sending a field survey team to obtain elevation data to find a network of high points for comms purposes is time consuming, costly and difficult, especially in densely forested |
||||
8 |
What do you currently do to address this challenge?/ How is this challenge conventionally addressed? |
Ground survey team |
||||
9 |
What kind of solution do you envisage could address this challenge? |
High resolution DEM that is affordable would be very valuable |
||||
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 could be a useful complimentary technology. |
||||
|
Challenge classification |
|
||||
11 |
Lifecycle stage |
Pre license |
Exp. |
Dev. |
Prod. |
Decom. |
Score from impact quantification [1] |
2 |
4 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
|
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 |
Speed exploration and development (Operational cost reduction), environment, safety |
||||
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 |
Conventional mapping and data from ground surveys |
||||
20 |
Spatial resolution |
Conventional mapping and data from ground surveys |
||||
21 |
Thematic accuracy |
|
||||
22 |
Example formats |
|
||||
23 |
Timeliness |
Reference data - timeliness not important |
||||
24 |
Geographic Extent |
Development area only |
||||
25 |
Existing standards |
N/A |
[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