|
Challenge ID |
OTM:067 |
||||
1 |
Title |
Change detection of coastline migration |
||||
2 |
Theme ID |
ON 4.1: Environmental monitoring - Baseline historic mapping of environment and ecosystems |
||||
3 |
Originator of Challenge |
Onshore: OTM |
||||
4 |
Challenge Reviewer / initiator |
PetroSA, Statoil, Shell, Eni |
||||
|
General description |
Overview of Challenge |
||||
5 |
What is the nature of the challenge? (What is not adequately addressed at present?) |
As a consequence of sedimentation and erosion, the integrity of our assets close to or on the coastline can be threatened. We need to position or protect our assets appropriately to ensure they remain operational for the entirety of their design life (and probably beyond). Although our operations may impact these coastal processes, using historical mapping to identify the previous rate and type of change is really important. |
||||
6 |
Thematic information requirements |
1. Obtain detailed topographic information, 3. Obtain detailed vegetation information, 4. Obtain detailed land-use information, |
||||
7 |
Nature of the challenge - What effect does this challenge have on operations? |
Being aware of this information allows us to site assets correctly which, in the long term, reduces our costs and impact on the environment, as well as removing a task for our staff that they would otherwise have had to performed (e.g. remedial works to s |
||||
8 |
What do you currently do to address this challenge?/ How is this challenge conventionally addressed? |
Out of date or insufficiently detailed basemaps are used.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 rivers and lakes as well as coast lines.
|
||||
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] |
1 |
0 |
3 |
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 |
Health and safety, strategic decision maker, Operational cost reduction, environment |
||||
17 |
Technology Urgency (How quickly does the user need the solution) |
Immediately (0-2 years) |
||||
|
Information requirements |
|
||||
18 |
Update frequency |
Annually |
||||
19 |
Data Currently used |
|
||||
20 |
Spatial resolution |
|
||||
21 |
Thematic accuracy |
|
||||
22 |
Example formats |
|
||||
23 |
Timeliness |
Within a month |
||||
24 |
Geographic Extent |
asset 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