Monitoring revegetation
|
|
Challenge ID |
OTM:062 |
||||
|
1 |
Title |
Monitoring revegetation |
||||
|
2 |
Theme ID |
ON 4.2: Environmental monitoring - Continuous monitoring of changes throughout the lifecycle |
||||
|
3 |
Originator of Challenge |
Onshore: OTM |
||||
|
4 |
Challenge Reviewer / initiator |
BP, Statoil, PetroSA, Eni, Tullow, Petronas, Chevron |
||||
|
|
General description |
Overview of Challenge |
||||
|
5 |
What is the nature of the challenge? (What is not adequately addressed at present?) |
The re-vegetation of a development site is a good indicator of ecosystem recovery. As it occurs over long time periods, monitoring this remotely is an advantage to us. |
||||
|
6 |
Thematic information requirements |
3. Obtain detailed vegetation information, |
||||
|
7 |
Nature of the challenge - What effect does this challenge have on operations? |
It is important, for both our reputation and obligation to the environment, that we do all we can to ensure that the impact our activity has on the environment is minimised. |
||||
|
8 |
What do you currently do to address this challenge?/ How is this challenge conventionally addressed? |
Out of date or poorly detailed basemaps are used. |
||||
|
9 |
What kind of solution do you envisage could address this challenge? |
Very high to medium resolution EO data to monitor changes of the environment.
|
||||
|
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] |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
4 |
|
|
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 |
Within six months |
||||
|
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