Remote supervision of operations
|
|
Challenge ID |
OTM:078 |
||||
|
1 |
Title |
Remote supervision of operations |
||||
|
2 |
Theme ID |
ON 5.4: Logistics planning and operations - Monitoring of assets |
||||
|
3 |
Originator of Challenge |
Onshore: OTM |
||||
|
4 |
Challenge Reviewer / initiator |
|
||||
|
|
General description |
Overview of Challenge |
||||
|
5 |
What is the nature of the challenge? (What is not adequately addressed at present?) |
We often sub-contract large workpack elements in remote locations, or locations that are geographically far away from our main offices. |
||||
|
6 |
Thematic information requirements |
9. Obtain detailed imagery of assets, |
||||
|
7 |
Nature of the challenge - What effect does this challenge have on operations? |
It would be beneficial to us to be able to supervise our sub-contractors without the requirement for an on-the-ground representative. It would help us to ensure, for example, that regulations are being adhered to, logistical activity is occurring as prom |
||||
|
8 |
What do you currently do to address this challenge?/ How is this challenge conventionally addressed? |
We sometimes pay third-parties to validate sub-contractor work. Otherwise we need to be on site ourselves. |
||||
|
9 |
What kind of solution do you envisage could address this challenge? |
EO data can provide frequent, repeated information on the construction progress and detects delays in the construction phase. |
||||
|
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] |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
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 |
HSE, operational cost reduction and efficiency |
||||
|
17 |
Technology Urgency (How quickly does the user need the solution) |
Immediately (0-2 years) |
||||
|
|
Information requirements |
|
||||
|
18 |
Update frequency |
As close to real-time as possible |
||||
|
19 |
Data Currently used |
|
||||
|
20 |
Spatial resolution |
|
||||
|
21 |
Thematic accuracy |
|
||||
|
22 |
Example formats |
|
||||
|
23 |
Timeliness |
As close to real-time as possible |
||||
|
24 |
Geographic Extent |
asset areas / reservoir footprints |
||||
|
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