Transcript Slide 1
DINO user council Reports of Working groups T.T. Kuipers Overview • Seismic data • Production data • National Data Repository meeting • Digital reports 2 Footer Delft, november 25, 2004 Seismic data • 1st Workgroup meeting 12-11-2007 7 organizations (ATP, EBN, GdF, NAM, Petro Canada, Total, Wintershall) 3 Footer Delft, november 25, 2004 Issues 1/2 1. The need to know exactly what seismic (and other geophysical-) surveys are shot • Yearly written inquiry by SodM 2. Mining regulations unclear • TNO will formulate a text indicating which data and how these should be send to TNO (including situations where companies leave the Netherlands) 3. 2D surveys > 1982 • TNO will try to obtain SEGY data where possible from the operators when asked for 2D seismic data younger than 1982 4 Footer Delft, november 25, 2004 Issues 2/2 4. Raw field data (Post stack) • participants support the value of these data. TNO will formulate a text (see 2) and make a proposal for the MEA 5. Release of data • Release after 5 years since the end of a survey is considered to be too soon 6. Non Mining Law surveys (reprocessed, merged) • TNO evaluates the possibilities to record the existence of these surveys in NLOG and refer to the ‘owner’ with conditions how one can get hold of the data 5 Footer Delft, november 25, 2004 Production data • Workgroup (all producing operators + SodM + EBN) met several times. Last meeting February 2006, new meeting to be scheduled soon • Latest production figures 2007 have been approved • New XML templates will be distributed short after meeting including options for • CO2 Storage • N2 Storage (salt industry) 6 Footer Delft, november 25, 2004 National Data Repository 8th meeting in Cape Town 19-21 February • 150 delegates of 50 countries • Most NDR’s associated with National Government • Different business models and different release policies; Netherlands unique in presenting data for free • Netherlands unique in combination ‘energy’ and geological survey • Increasing professionalism world wide • Many general problems: lack of standards, quality/skills of employees, running costs, software, legislation, 3rd party contracts with government • Most countries (try to) archive raw field data (in spite of huge data sets and uncertainty with reliability of back ups) • UK, Norway and Netherlands agreed to propose a definition for exchanging digital reports 7 Footer Delft, november 25, 2004 Digital reports • We receive digital reports in two ways: • Without media (e-mail, FTP) • On media (CD, DVD or USB) • Formats • Word, Excel, Access • TIF, JPG, PDS • PDF • HTML, XML 8 Footer Delft, november 25, 2004 Problem • The sometimes complex structured files are difficult to process as it is often unclear what files are exactly required and which files are extra. Also archiving in the long term is almost impossible. • Formats may not longer be supported • Media will decay • Autorun options will not start from within a database or even after downloading • At the moment we ZIP complex reports (well seismic) 9 Footer Delft, november 25, 2004 Possible way out • Preferred (open) formats • TIF • PDF(a) • Reports accompanied by a specified list of metadata explaining the report so it can be found again later on 10 Footer Delft, november 25, 2004