T.T. Kuipers

Reports of Working groups

DINO user council

Delft, november 25, 2004Footer2

Overview

• Seismic data

• Production data

• National Data Repository meeting

• Digital reports

Delft, november 25, 2004Footer3

Seismic data

• 1st Workgroup meeting 12-11-2007

7 organizations (ATP, EBN, GdF, NAM, Petro Canada, Total, Wintershall)

Delft, november 25, 2004Footer4

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

Delft, november 25, 2004Footer5

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 MEA5. 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

Delft, november 25, 2004Footer6

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)

Delft, november 25, 2004Footer7

National Data Repository8th 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

Delft, november 25, 2004Footer8

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

Delft, november 25, 2004Footer9

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)

Delft, november 25, 2004Footer10

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