|
|
Challenge ID |
OTM:038 |
||||
|
1 |
Title |
Planning secondary surveys |
||||
|
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 |
Statoil, Eni, Tullow, Petronas |
||||
|
|
General description |
Overview of Challenge |
||||
|
5 |
What is the nature of the challenge? (What is not adequately addressed at present?) |
Get information on a potential site before the survey to support the planning and secure the staff. This can include e.g. terrain and vegetation information for chosen the correct equipment. |
||||
|
6 |
Thematic information requirements |
1. Obtain detailed topographic information, 2. Obtain detailed terrain characterisation, 3. Obtain detailed vegetation information, 5. Identify location and condition of transport infrastructure, 6. Identify inland water bodies and determine water qual |
||||
|
7 |
Nature of the challenge - What effect does this challenge have on operations? |
Getting a first overview of a remote area before a survey can be challenging and can depend on local contacts and knowledge, which can be subjective or cover only small areas |
||||
|
8 |
What do you currently do to address this challenge?/ How is this challenge conventionally addressed? |
existing mapping and recorded data, but this rarely is sufficient |
||||
|
9 |
What kind of solution do you envisage could address this challenge? |
Very high to medium resolution EO data to derive land cover and land use information in remote and unexplored areas. Resolution depending on covered area and size of analysis objective. |
||||
|
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] |
3 |
2 |
2 |
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 |
reduction in planning costs |
||||
|
17 |
Technology Urgency (How quickly does the user need the solution) |
Immediately (0-2 years) |
||||
|
|
Information requirements |
|
||||
|
18 |
Update frequency |
depending on sensor and application |
||||
|
19 |
Data Currently used |
|
||||
|
20 |
Spatial resolution |
|
||||
|
21 |
Thematic accuracy |
80-90% |
||||
|
22 |
Example formats |
Standardized geo-spatial formats (e.g. shapefile, geotiff or KML) |
||||
|
23 |
Timeliness |
Reference data - timeliness not important |
||||
|
24 |
Geographic Extent |
|
||||
|
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