report on proceedings of ndr10 held in rio …...ndr 10 proceedings page 5 some of the comments in...

REPORT ON PROCEEDINGS OF NDR10

HELD IN RIO DE JANEIRO IN MARCH 2011

Stewart Robinson

Chairman of NDR10 and UK Department of Energy and Climate Change

NDR 10 proceedings

Platinum Sponsors

Gold Sponsor

Silver Sponsors

Bronze Sponsors

NDR 10 proceedings

Contents Page

Foreword 4

Summary of meeting content and organisation 5

Follow up 6

Next meeting 7

Annexes

A Delegate list in alphabetic (full) and country (only Regulators) sequence 8

[Emails have not been included for security reasons but are available from either

Stewart Robinson or Jerry Hubbard]

B Brazilian key note speech by Ms. Magda Maria de Regina Chambriard 16

C Introductory talk by Stewart Robinson 20

D Introductory sessions 25

E Breakout sessions 26

1 Well naming conventions

2 How to handle data rights and entitlements

3 How to manage distributed repositories

4 How to manage physical data collections

6 How to archive for posterity

9 How is data quality measured

14 Organisation and funding

16 Benefits of a repository, justifying an NDR

17 How to re-tender an NDR

19 What is an NDR

20 Storing and sharing production data in an NDR

F Country reports 39

Azerbaijan

Brasil

Canada – Nova Scotia

India

Kenya

Malaysia

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Oman

Pakistan

Turkey

UK

G Evaluation forms : feedback summary and analysis (by Malcolm Fleming) 65

NDR 10 proceedings

Foreword

NDR10 was, in my opinion, the best one yet. In numbers we had 24 different regulators, 31

different countries and over 150 delegates. More than that at this meeting there was a real

desire to start cooperating and it is up to us to let this desire flourish. There was energy in all

of the breakout sessions but, as importantly, the buzz that existed in the lunch and coffee

breaks and the interactions outside the organised sessions demonstrated interest in each other.

One reason for NDR10‟s success has been the leadership of Energistics and any collaboration

that we undertake between meetings will be because of Energistics. The UK has been a

member of Energistics from the start and I encourage all regulators to join. Membership is

relatively small and for small countries is negotiable. Once there is a growing membership

within this standards organisation more opportunities such as NDR meetings will emerge.

Enough of an advertisement first of all I want to mention the organising committee for

NDR10 (all volunteer labour):

Stewart Robinson DECC – UK Chairman

Alan Smith RPS Energy

Malcolm Fleming CDA

Craig Beebee Halliburton/Landmark

Jerry Hubbard Energistics

Kerry Blinston Fugro

Eric Toogood NPD - Norway

R. C. Agrawalla DGH - India

Renato Lopes Silveira ANP - Brasil

Rick Johnston Schlumberger

Tirza M. van Daalen TNO -Netherlands

These people did the technical work but the real work of arranging venues, food, rooms,

transport, visas etc etc was done by

Monica Smith Petroleum Agency SA

Christine Skagerberg Schlumberger

Luiz Henrique Vidal Ferraz ANP

Vivian Bigal Halliburton/Landmark

Melissa Ray Energistics

NDR10 was designed following the feedback from NDR9 in India to be more of a mixture of

country feedbacks and breakout sessions giving all delegates more opportunity to contribute.

The evaluation returns from NDR10 show this was the correct decision. It is harder

organising these type of meetings, we can do better but we are all pleased at the result.

One of my initial goals when I organised the first of these meetings in 1996 was cooperation

between regulators as I believe we do not really compete with each other storing data or

issuing permits and licences. This now looks a real possibility.

NDR 10 proceedings

Some of the comments in this report are a value judgement on my part (for that I apologise)

and I must thank Malcolm Fleming (who wrote half of it) and all the facilitators of the

sessions for their notes.

Stewart Robinson

Chairman of NDR10

UK Department of Energy and Climate Change

Board member of Energistics

Summary of meeting content and organisation

I have tried to include as much detail as I could in the Annexes and will only summarise the

main findings here together with feedback from the evaluation forms and panel session.

Rio as a location was an excellent choice, thank you ANP.

A major positive was that the breakout sessions (see Annex E) were well received. We can do

better and we will take account of comments such as:

Sessions could be longer

Sessions could be advertised better in advance

Could be more sessions

Could be fewer, more focussed, topics.

This time in planning we did work hard in advance suggesting session topics and getting

people to indicate which were the most popular. The response to our emails was very low.

Perhaps next time now that people realise how important these sessions are the organising

committee will get more help. This is not meant as criticism we are all learning how to run

these meetings better.

The Country Feedbacks were once again popular. I have included in this report (Annex F) all

the template returns that have been sent in. They have also been posted on the web site,

together with the power points, and I will continue to badger all countries to complete one.

As these grow we will be building a very useful set of information. Once one is completed it

is easy to keep it up to date.

There have been more comments on how we deliver country feedbacks at these meetings than

anything else. What is obvious is that everyone who presents is very proud of what they have

done. I am always very impressed when the presentation is given by individuals whose first

language is not English and the delight in their achievements is still obvious. We must not

lose that at these meetings and hearing what others are doing is another reason I instigated

these meetings but we do need to take account of the comments made such as:

Time-keeping on some Country Reports could be improved

Content (of some Country Reports) did not match the agenda

Some Country Reports had too much „padding‟ (which could have been provided as a

pre-read)

No time for questions

NDR 10 proceedings

I think that how we improve this part of the meeting will be a major topic for the new

committee. Getting most countries to complete templates in advance would help, running

feedbacks in parallel is an option, there will be other thoughts.

Follow up

To date at these meetings there has always been a weak commitment to remain engaged

between conferences. One of the goals of the breakout sessions was to identify potential areas

for collaboration.

The collaboration facilities currently provided by Energistics are being reviewed but a better

facility is unlikely to be available until November 2011. DECC offered to provide some

simple facilities to allow collaboration to begin as soon as possible to ensure that any

momentum established at NDR10 was not lost. This facility is available in parallel with the

release of this report.

The facility can be accessed at https://www.og.decc.gov.uk/eng/fox/collab/COLLAB_HUB

It is part of the UK‟s UK Oil Portal. If it is successful we will look at a way of moving the

facility, or an equivalent, to Energistics.

If you want to take part in any of the collaborations and you have not been contacted please

contact Jerry Hubbard at Energistics ([email protected])

The principles behind the collaboration are:

Topics should be taken up by work groups and should be goal-oriented, with a

commitment to present deliverables to NDR11 (there was strong support for this)

Small groups can work the issues and consult occasionally with the wider NDR

community for feedback as they move forward

The following specific work group topics were suggested:

1) Production Data Reporting

2) Standardising Regulatory Reporting (David Holmes)

3) Guidelines for tendering and re-tendering NDR contracts (MF)

4) Naming Conventions for Seismic Lines and Surveys (Ugur Algan)

5) Benchmarking NDR metrics

6) Tape versus disk

Topics must have direct relevance to NDRs

https://www.og.decc.gov.uk/eng/fox/collab/COLLAB_HUB

mailto:[email protected]

NDR 10 proceedings

Next meeting

We are pleased to confirm that the next meeting will be held sometime in 2012 in Malaysia.

We thank Dr Jaizan Hardi Mohamed Jais of Petronas for his offer to host and

look forward to convening again.

Planning has already started and there is much to think about before the next meeting. We

have the following issues (in no particular sequence):

Shorter list of breakout candidates

Longer breakout sessions

Allow time for questions and open discussion after plenary sessions

More about technology

More case studies and lessons learnt

More diversified vendor presence

More or fewer vendors

Create an expert directory for each participating NDR company

More IOCs at the conference

Should be a charge, say $200 to attend.

Should meeting be longer, particularly if we are going to have feedback from

collaboration work.

We will try and keep everyone in touch with the latest thinking. We will put round

newsletters and keep an eye on the web site http://www.energistics.org/ndr10

Also if you know of other NDRs that were not at NDR10 let us know about them.

http://www.energistics.org/ndr10

NDR 10 proceedings

ANNEX A : Registered delegates (alphabetic sequence) First Name Last Name Company Country Class

Ramesh Chandra Agrawalla Directorate General of Hydrocarbons India NDR

Telma Aisengart Geosoft Latinoamerica Brasil Vendor

Saeed Akhtar LMKR Pakistan Vendor

Younis Al Balushi Halliburton/Landmark Oman Vendor

Abdullah Al Mahruqi PDO Oman Oil

Bader Al Sariri Ministry of Oil & Gas - Oman Oman NDR

Abdullah Al Shuely PDO Oman Oil

Carmen Elena Alcovedes Schlumberger Colombia Vendor

Ugur Algan Volantice Ltd. UK Vendor

Sergio Henrique Almeida ANP Brasil NOC

Marcos Alves Halliburton/Landmark Oman Vendor

Ibrahim Al-Zadjali Ministry of Oil & Gas - Oman Oman NDR

Melissa Amstelveen Staatsolie Maatschappij Suriname N.V. Suriname NOC

Jose Angarita Ecopetrol Colombia NOC

Ferdinand Aniwa Ghana National Petroleum Corporation Ghana NOC

Daniel Araujo ANP Brasil NOC

Marcio Arbex IesBrazil Brasil Vendor

Carolynna Arce ANH Colombia NDR

German Arevalo ANH Colombia NDR

Eric Atherton DataHorizon UK Vendor

Tito Avella Ecopetrol Colombia NOC

Luis Bacigalupo RPS Energy USA Vendor

Daniel Bandarrinha BRNL Brasil Vendor

` Barman Directorate General of Hydrocarbons India NDR

Craig Beebee Halliburton/Landmark UK Vendor

Carlos Belem IesBrazil Brasil Vendor

Vivian Bigal Halliburton/Landmark Brasil Vendor

Luiz Henrique de Oliveira Bispo ANP Brasil NOC

Kjell Arne Bjerkhaug Kadme AS Norway Vendor

Kerry Blinston Fugro Data Solutions UK Vendor

Vasily Borisov Kadme AS Norway Vendor

Geraldo Calainho Filho Halliburton/Landmark Brasil Vendor

Jean Carlos Shell Brasil Brasil Oil

Hammond Charles, Jr. Chevron USA Oil

Sylvana Ching Yong Staatsolie Maatschappij Suriname NV Suriname NOC

Eduardo Cordts ANP Brasil NOC

Joao Correa BRNL Brasil Vendor

NDR 10 proceedings

Bernardo de Almeida ANP Brasil NOC

Luis Felipe de Paula RPS Energy Brasil Vendor

Elizabeth Delgado Halliburton/Landmark Brasil Vendor

Alessandro Diniz imagem Brasil Vendor

Rustem Dossanov Petrodata Kazakhstan JSC Kazakhstan NDR

Allan Kardec Duailibe ANP Brasil NOC

Daniel Duguet GeoLeader Russia Vendor

Indrajit Dutta Directorate General of Hydrocarbons India NDR

Mirjam Emanuels Staatsolie Maatschappij Suriname N.V. Suriname NDR

Gustavo Espil Halliburton/Landmark Argentina Vendor

Marcia Faria ANP Brasil NOC

Malcolm Fleming CDA UK NDR

Diogo Freitas ANP Brasil NOC

Richard Garlick Crown Minerals, MED New Zealand NDR

Jean Louis Gelot CGG Veritas Brasil Vendor

Andre Giserman ANP Brasil NOC

Vinicius Goncalves CPM Braxis Brasil Vendor

Sergio Gonzalez Schlumberger Brasil Vendor

Sally Gould Oil IT Journal France Other

Stephan Gruijters TNO Netherlands NDR

Alirio Guerrero Pena Ecopetrol Colombia NOC

Aycan Gulten Turkish Petroleum Corporation Turkey NOC

Mustafa Ugur Gurcay Turkish Petroleum Corporation Turkey NOC

Philip Harrison DECC UK NDR

Volker Hirsinger Petrosys USA Vendor

David Holmes FUSE Information Management Ltd UK Vendor

Jerry Hubbard Energistics USA Vendor

Inayat Huseynov SOCAR Azerbaijan NOC

Aliya Huseynova SOCAR Azerbaijan NOC

Cleiner Iniguez Schlumberger Ecuador Vendor

Felicia Irimies DMP Australia NDR

Fernanda Jacob Halliburton/Landmark Brasil Vendor

Norzilah Jaffar PETRONAS Malaysia NOC

Rick Johnston Schlumberger USA Vendor

Tulegen Kalau Petrodata Kazakhstan JSC Kazakhstan NDR

Germain Kama SNH Cameroon NDR

Heru Khristiyanto Pertamina Upstream Indonesia NOC

Eunice Kilonzo National Oil Corporation of Kenya Kenya NOC

Daniel Kimambo TPDC Tanzania NDR

Luis Klem IesBrazil Brasil Vendor

NDR 10 proceedings

Kelvin Komba TPDC Tanzania NDR

Rubio Leonardo Halliburton/Landmark Brasil Vendor

Jairo Alfonso Lesmes Ecopetrol Colombia NOC

Haroldo Lima ANP Brasil NOC

Luciano Lobo ANP Brasil NOC

Aage Loklingholm Envision Streamline AS Norway Vendor

Jean Lopes ANP Brasil NOC

Ana Maria Lopez Ecopetrol Colombia NOC

Jean-Pierre Loule SNH Cameroon NDR Tabita Yaling Cheng Loureiro ANP Brasil NOC

Kurt Machnizh Halliburton/Landmark Brasil Vendor

Inocencia Maculuve INP Mozambique NDR

Khalik Mammadov SOCAR Azerbaijan NOC

Paula Mariz da Silva ANP Brasil NOC

Henry Martinez Schlumberger UAE Vendor

Bruno da Rocha Mendes Vale E&P Brasil Oil

Mike Mitchell DataHorizon UK Vendor

Maria Mitroi Prospectiuni Romania Vendor

Jaizan Hardi Mohamed Jais PETRONAS Malaysia NOC

Fernando Molina HOCOL S.A. Colombia Oil

Gianluca Monachese Kadme AS Norway Vendor

Anke Moraes ANP Brasil NOC

Mauro Morand BRNL Brasil Vendor

Carlos Moreno Schlumberger Colombia Vendor

Omary Mtunguja TPDC Tanzania NDR

David Mulinde Petroleum E&P Uganda NDR

Fabiano Nascimento IesBrazil Brasil Vendor

Ihsan Nergiz Halliburton/Landmark Turkey Vendor

Gilberto Prates Neto Fugro Seismic Imaging USA Vendor Andrew Ochan Petroleum E&P Uganda NDR

Elizabeth Ochieng National Oil Corporation of Kenya Kenya NOC

Toril Opstvedt NPD Norway NDR

Jarrett Page Fugro Data Solutions USA Vendor

Maria Pariani Registros Mineros Argentino S.A Argentina NDR

Rene Peels LMKR USA Vendor

Julian Pickering Digital Oilfield Solutions UK Vendor

Ivan Plata Ecopetrol Colombia NOC

Geiza Powell Vale Oil and Gas Brasil Oil

Michael Quarm Ghana National Petroleum Corporation Ghana NOC

Danusa Ramalho ANP Brasil NOC

Bjorn Randeberg NPD Norway NDR

Giselle Raposo Halliburton/Landmark Brasil Vendor

NDR 10 proceedings

John Redfern Digital Earth China Vendor

Johon Restrepo ANH Colombia NOC

Carlos Rey ANH Colombia NOC

Stewart Robinson DECC UK NDR

Yusof Rosli iPerintis Malaysia Vendor

Jocely Roza ANP Brasil NOC

Hitesh Sachan Digital Earth USA Vendor

Fernanda Sales ANP Brasil NOC

Richard Salway CDA UK NDR

Fernando Santos ANP Brasil NOC

Maisa Santos ANP Brasil NOC

Edilson Santos Halliburton/Landmark Brasil Vendor

Abdul Sattar LMKR UAE Vendor

Samit Sengupta Geologix Ltd UK Vendor

Paulo Alexandre Souza da Silva ANP Brasil NOC

Renato Silveira ANP Brasil NOC

Doddy Simorangkir PUSDATIN ESDM Indonesia NDR

Chandra Bhan Singh Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas India NDR

Gunnar Sjogren Petrad Norway Vendor

Christine Skagerberg Schlumberger USA Vendor

Monica Smith Petroleum Agency SA South Africa NDR

Alan Smith RPS Energy UK Vendor

Atul Solanki Halliburton/Landmark Norway Vendor

Rodrigo Souto Shell Brasil Brasil Oil

Claudio Souza ANP Brasil NOC Leonardo Pinto de Souza ANP Brasil NOC

Helen Stephenson Stephenson and Associates France Vendor

Taner Tanis Turkish Petroleum Corporation Turkey NOC

Danielle Tardin CPM Braxis Brasil Vendor

Nafuz Temizhan Turkish Petroleum Corporation Turkey NOC

Bjorn Thorsen Halliburton/Landmark Norway Vendor

Gustavo Tinoco ANP Brasil NOC

Luis Tognon Independent Consultant Argentina Vendor

Rico Tonis TNO Netherlands NDR

Eric Toogood NPD Norway Absent

Alma Uzhkenov Committe of Geology Kazakhstan NDR

Bulat Uzhkenov Committe of Geology Kazakhstan NDR

Tirza Van Daalen TNO Netherlands NDR

Lucia Vaz ANP Brasil NOC

Mary Jean Verrall Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board Canada NDR

NDR 10 proceedings

Carlos Vieira Halliburton/Landmark Brasil Vendor

Elina Widyastuti PUSDATIN ESDM Indonesia NDR

Robert Winsloe Digital Earth UK Vendor

Ali Yahyaee PDO Oman Oil

Aidar Yespayev Kazakh Institute of Oil and Gas Kazakhstan NDR

Murat Yilmaz Turkish Petroleum Corporation Turkey NOC

Zakiah Zainol PETRONAS Malaysia NOC

Anuar Zhaxybekov Operating Company Kazakhstan NOC

NDR 10 proceedings

ANNEX A : DELEGATES FROM REGULATORS

First Name Last Name Company Country

Maria Pariani Registros Mineros Argentino S.A Argentina

Felicia Irimies DMP Australia

Aliya Huseynova SOCAR Azerbaijan

Inayat Huseynov SOCAR Azerbaijan

Khalik Mammadov SOCAR Azerbaijan

Allan Kardec Duailibe ANP Brasil

Andre Giserman ANP Brasil

Anke Moraes ANP Brasil

Bernardo de Almeida ANP Brasil

Claudio Souza ANP Brasil

Daniel Araujo ANP Brasil

Danusa Ramalho ANP Brasil

Diogo Freitas ANP Brasil

Eduardo Cordts ANP Brasil

Fernanda Sales ANP Brasil

Fernando Santos ANP Brasil

Gustavo Tinoco ANP Brasil

Haroldo Lima ANP Brasil

Jean Lopes ANP Brasil

Jocely Roza ANP Brasil Leonardo Pinto de Souza ANP Brasil

Lucia Vaz ANP Brasil

Luciano Lobo ANP Brasil Luiz Henrique de Oliveira Bispo ANP Brasil

Maisa Santos ANP Brasil

Marcia Faria ANP Brasil

Paula Mariz da Silva ANP Brasil

Paulo Alexandre Souza da Silva ANP Brasil

Renato Silveira ANP Brasil

Sergio Henrique Almeida ANP Brasil Tabita Yaling Cheng Loureiro ANP Brasil

Germain Kama SNH Cameroon

Jean-Pierre Loule SNH Cameroon

Mary Jean Verrall Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board Canada

Alirio Guerrero Pena Ecopetrol Colombia

Ana Maria Lopez Ecopetrol Colombia

NDR 10 proceedings

Carlos Rey ANH Colombia

Carolynna Arce ANH Colombia

German Arevalo ANH Colombia

Ivan Plata Ecopetrol Colombia

Jairo Alfonso Lesmes Ecopetrol Colombia

Johon Restrepo ANH Colombia

Jose Angarita Ecopetrol Colombia

Tito Avella Ecopetrol Colombia

Ferdinand Aniwa Ghana National Petroleum Corporation Ghana

Michael Quarm Ghana National Petroleum Corporation Ghana

` Barman Directorate General of Hydrocarbons India

Chandra Bhan Singh Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas India

Indrajit Dutta Directorate General of Hydrocarbons India

Ramesh Chandra Agrawalla Directorate General of Hydrocarbons India

Doddy Simorangkir PUSDATIN ESDM Indonesia

Elina Widyastuti PUSDATIN ESDM Indonesia

Heru Khristiyanto Pertamina Upstream Indonesia

Aidar Yespayev Kazakh Institute of Oil and Gas Kazakhstan

Alma Uzhkenov Committe of Geology Kazakhstan

Anuar Zhaxybekov Operating Company Kazakhstan

Bulat Uzhkenov Committe of Geology Kazakhstan

Rustem Dossanov Petrodata Kazakhstan JSC Kazakhstan

Tulegen Kalau Petrodata Kazakhstan JSC Kazakhstan

Elizabeth Ochieng National Oil Corporation of Kenya Kenya

Eunice Kilonzo National Oil Corporation of Kenya Kenya

Jaizan Hardi Mohamed Jais PETRONAS Malaysia

Norzilah Jaffar PETRONAS Malaysia

Zakiah Zainol PETRONAS Malaysia

Inocencia Maculuve INP Mozambique

Rico Tonis TNO Netherlands

Stephan Gruijters TNO Netherlands

Tirza Van Daalen TNO Netherlands

Richard Garlick Crown Minerals, MED New Zealand

Bjorn Randeberg NPD Norway

Toril Opstvedt NPD Norway

Bader Al Sariri Ministry of Oil & Gas - Oman Oman

Ibrahim Al-Zadjali Ministry of Oil & Gas - Oman Oman

NDR 10 proceedings

Monica Smith Petroleum Agency SA South Africa

Melissa Amstelveen Staatsolie Maatschappij Suriname N.V. Suriname

Mirjam Emanuels Staatsolie Maatschappij Suriname N.V. Suriname

Sylvana Ching Yong Staatsolie Maatschappij Suriname NV Suriname

Daniel Kimambo TPDC Tanzania

Kelvin Komba TPDC Tanzania

Omary Mtunguja TPDC Tanzania

Aycan Gulten Turkish Petroleum Corporation Turkey

Murat Yilmaz Turkish Petroleum Corporation Turkey

Mustafa Ugur Gurcay Turkish Petroleum Corporation Turkey

Nafuz Temizhan Turkish Petroleum Corporation Turkey

Taner Tanis Turkish Petroleum Corporation Turkey

Andrew Ochan Petroleum E&P Uganda

David Mulinde Petroleum E&P Uganda

Malcolm Fleming CDA UK

Philip Harrison DECC UK

Richard Salway CDA UK

Stewart Robinson DECC UK

NDR 10 proceedings

ANNEX B : KEY NOTE SPEECH BY

Ms. MAGDA MARIA DE REGINA CHAMBRIARD

KEYNOTE ADDRESS

The role of BDEP in the management of

information on the Brazilian

Sedimentary Basins

Magda ChambriardDirector

Brazilian Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels

Presentation Structure

1. ANP Structure and Upstream Divisions

4. BDEP – Brazilian Data Center

3. Improving knowledge on the Brazilian

Sedimentary Basins

2. Brazilian Oil Industry Current Status

ANP Upstream Divisions

UPSTREAM DIVISIONS

ANP Upstream Areas

SDTTechnical Data

Division

SDB Blocks Definition

Division

SPL Licensing Rounds

Division

SPG GovernmentTake Division

SEP Exploration

Division

SDP Development

and ProductionDivision

NFP Productioninspecting

CSO Operational Safety

CCLLocal Content

CMA Environment Protection

Brazilian Oil Industry

Current Status

Companies

40 national38 foreign

Concession Contracts(March/2011)

Exploratory Phase: 349 blocks

Production/Development Phase: 400 fields

Current Status of Oil Industry

NDR 10 proceedings

Production

Oil – 2,18 million bbl/d

Gas – 62,8 million m3/d

Net Imports/Exports

Oil – 292,7 thousand bbl/d

Gas – 34,6 million m3/d

Proven Reserves

Oil – ~ 14 billion bbl (*)

Gas – ~ 417 billion m3

(*) Includes proved reserves from the pre-salt area (“Lula” field)

Current Status of Oil Industry(2010)

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

28

32

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Near future

Petroleum Reserves

Billion barrels

More than 30 billion bblLula, Iara, Guará, Parque das

Baleias, Franco and Libra

The Pre-Salt as a New Paradigm(up to 50 billion bbl?)

From 2004:

71 wells drilled

13 wells (18%)

without discovery

2-ANP-2A-RJS

2-ANP-1-RJS

Improving

knowledge on the Brazilian

Sedimentary Basins

New data in the Brazilian

Sedimentary Basins

The seismic acquisitons performed by Data

Acquistion Companies (DACs) after the monopoly

Flexibilization were crucial for discovering the

Pre-Salt area – the new horizon to petroleum

industry

Seismic

pre-1998

Seismic until

2002

Current seismic

Concluded projectsInvestments of ~ US$ 190 million

On going projectsInvestments of ~ US$ 121 million

ANP Data Acquisiton

G & G 5-year plan

NDR 10 proceedings

5-year plan total investment ~ US$ 650 million

• Seismic assessment in Jacuípe basin (2D)

• Magnetoteluric surveys in Paraná, Parecis and Amazonas basins

Projects in bidding phase

• Seismic assessment in Santos (3D), Ceará and Parnaíba basin (2D)

• Geochemistry surveys in Tacutu and Foz do Amazonas basins

• Petroleum systems studies in São Francisco basin

• Drilling of four to six stratigraphic wells

Projects under consideration

G & G 5-year plan

BDEPBrazilian Data Center

ANP Data Bank

The Brazilian Data Center is the unit inside ANP responsible for storing all

technical data acquired on petroleum exploration and production activities

throughout Brazilian sedimentary basins.

What is BDEP?

- 1995: Constitutional amendment n°9 – Monopoly flexibilization

- 1997: Law n°9478 – Creation of the Regulatory Agency – ANP

Article 8°, item XI - “organize and maintain archives of information and technical data related to petroleum, natural gas and biofuels industry regulated activities”

- 2000: To achieve this mission, ANP created BDEP, operated through a technical

agreement with the National Geologic Survey - CPRM

ANP Data Bank

Legal issues

1,800,000 km seismic lines

19,000 wells

912,500 km non-seismic data

1998: Petrobras Data collection transfer to ANP (legacy data)

Seismic Data

Well Data

Non-seismic Data

The competitive market

structure led

to a growth

of data acquisition

activities

Represents 2.3%

of current BDEP´s

Data collection

in volume

ANP Data Bank

SEISMIC PRE-STACK3,164 Tb

213 THOUSAND TAPES

TOTAL = 3,198 Tb or 3.2 Pb

BDEP DATA COLLECTION (2010)

Corresponding to...

60 million of

full drawers2,041,275

DVD s

20 billion of

digital photos

Post-stack seismic = 1,130 surveys

Wells = 25 thousand

Potential methods = 339 programs

Data Collection

NDR 10 proceedings

BDEP yesterday and today

2000 2010 Increase

x 44TOTAL COLLECTION

3.2 PB

NUMBER OF MEMBERS

NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS

REVENUE

519

10.3 mi

3.2 mi

140

14

0.071 PB

x 1.9

x 3.7

x 3.2

27

BDEP Investments

TECHNOLOGY

Investments

US$ 3.5 million invested in hardwares in 2008/2009

US$ 4.1 million forecasted for 2010/2011

• Oil Companies

(exclusive data)

• DACs

Data Acquisition

Companies

(non-exclusive data)

• ANP data acquisition

(foment data)

Quality Control

Data Loading

Data Storing

Data collection Data Delivery

• Licencing Rounds(data package)

• ANP (blocks study and offer)

• Associated Members

• Universities

• Eventual Users

Confidentiality

Period

ANP

Standards

BDEP Activities

Exemple of associated

companies

Eventual Users: all the others concessionaires and service companies

Final Remarks

• Data Availability is a key issue for the oil & gas industry;

• The intensification of E&P activities in Brazil increases the challenge of

ensuring the availability of good data just in time;

• New data acquisitions impose us agility to build new standards to store and

release information;

• ANP is really interested in cooperating with NDR members for the

improvement of technical data management.

Director Magda Chambriard

March/2011

NDR 10 proceedings

ANNEX C : INTRODUCTORY TALK (Stewart Robinson)

15–18 March 2011 l Rio de Janeiro, Brasil

Welcome to NDR10

Sponsored by

Thanks to our organising committeeStewart Robinson DECC - UK

Alan Smith RPS Energy

Malcolm Fleming CDA

Craig Beebee Halliburton/Landmark

Jerry Hubbard Energistics

Kerry Blinston Fugro

Eric Toogood NPD - Norway

R. C. Agrawalla DGH - India

Renato Lopes Silveira ANP - Brasil

Rick Johnston Schlumberger

Tirza M. van Daalen TNO -Netherlands

And a special thanks to:

Monica Smith Petroleum Agency SA

Christine Skagerberg Schlumberger

Luiz Henrique Vidal Ferraz ANP

Vivian Bigal Halliburton/Landmark

Melissa Ray Energistics

In the beginning there was ………….

NDR 10 proceedings

Countries at first meeting in 1996 in London

Alaska Norway

Algeria New Zealand

Canada Peru

Denmark UK

Indonesia USA

Netherlands

NDR meetings

1. London

2. Norway

3. Canada

4. Norway

5. USA

6. Holland

7. Columbia

8. South Africa

9. India

10. Brazil

11. ???

And now there is …….Norway

UK

Holland

Russia

Siberia

Alberta

South Africa

USA

Namibia

Brazil

Columbia

New Zealand

Netherlands

Peru

East Canada

Tanzania

Angola

Ghana

Oman

Kazakhstan

Turkey

Malaysia

Kenya

Nova Scotia

China

and more …

NDR 10 proceedings

Kadme NDR World Map

Our Keynote Address

Ms. Magda Maria de Regina Chambriard

Director

NDR 10 proceedings

How do you know if your

NDR is a success ?

• Stored all log data in perfect

format

• All seismic data on line

• My minister is happy

• Oil companies don’t complain

• Our last licensing round was

best yet

Someone here has solved your problem.

How can you find them.

Purpose of meeting :

Listen, Learn, Share Collaborate

NDR 10 proceedings

What can we do next ?

Collaborate

How is NDR 10 organised

• Introductory sessions

• Breakout sessions

• Country feedback reports

• Social events – getting to know people

• Sponsor talks

• Final day panel session

• NDR 10 report

• TARGET - COLLABORATION

NDR 10 proceedings

ANNEX D : INTRODUCTORY SESSIONS

An innovation at NDR10 was to start Day 1 with introductory sessions.

The intention of these sessions was :

to split up delegates,

to get people talking and

to encourage mixing.

The major reason was that we recognised in previous meetings that English is not everyone‟s

first language, that speaking in a large auditorium can be daunting and that often delegates

that have a significant contribution to make may not be heard.

The delegates were split into six small groups and were asked to say a little bit about

themselves and why they had attended the NDR meeting.

The major reasons for attending were (in no specific sequence) :

Learn from others how to set up NDR

Learn about different solutions

Share experience of start up.

Publicize well standards.

Learn about re-tendering.

See if there was independent advice available.

See if a problem we have is a common problem.

Are there any best practices.

Build contacts elsewhere.

Talk to others about standards.

See if anyone else is looking at production data.

During the discussions a number of topics were raised that could be used as a panel session or

be a topic for a breakout at another NDR meeting. These were (in no specific sequence).

Pre-stack data: what to keep; coping with the volumes etc

Production data management

Application integration (webs services and workflow)

Cloud computing

Reporting/submission standards for well data

Regulatory enforcement

Disaster recovery (prompted by the Japanese tsunami)

How to dispose of redundant data responsibly (cores, tapes, mylar etc)

Should oil companies get their own houses in order before an NDR is attempted?

Publishing raw data creates a market for value-adding (and brings jobs)

Open standards for data

A vendor-neutral directory of people with NDR experience and skills

Data governance

Professionalising data management

A „cook book‟ for NDRs to share information and solutions available on a shared website

A professional society for data managers

NDR 10 proceedings

ANNEX E : BREAKOUT SESSIONS

Breakout session 1 : Well Naming Conventions

Being able to uniquely identify a well and then to associate data with it accurately is an

absolutely essential data management practice. But it is not straightforward and is

complicated by sidetracked wells, re-entered wells and a host of other well engineering

and drilling practices.

At this session, delegates will compare notes and explore best practices in this area, for

example:

• The definition of a ‘well’.

• Structure of the well name/number and whether it should convey meaning.

• The data matching problems caused by the name

Discussion resulted in the following.

Well/Wellbore relationship

• Wells have a unique surface location

• Wellbores are in some systems recorded in the same way as wells

• Wellbores are what you should hang data off

• Wellbores must therefore have a unique name

• Wells and wellbores often have several names which should be managed as aliases

• Well/wellbore modelling for all wells in the same „Well Family‟ is important because

wellbores may carry a different name

Well Name Issues

The group found that the following have been incorporated in well names:

• Location

• Well Type (produced product)

• Deviation Status

• Onshore/Offshore

• Original Operator

• Wellbore Status (sidetrack, re-entry)

• None of the above

Well Name Issues – best practice recommendations

• Central, official source for well names

• Aliases subordinate to official well name

• Keep it simple – use other well header attributes to convey all but basic well

information

• Wellbore modelling work done by PPDM is worth a look

• Global Unique Well Identifier is a good idea but problems of language, alphabets and

implied meaning hamper uptake

• Global UWI must therefore be a ‟Random Number‟ with no other implied meaning

• Best practice guidelines published through NDR forum are a good idea

NDR 10 proceedings

Breakout session 2 : How to handle data rights and entitlements

Failure to correctly recognise ownership and other legal rights to data can lead to legal

disputes and in extreme cases to serious business problems. In this session delegates will

share experiences in order to arrive at a set of simple guidelines for entitlements by

exploring the following:

What governs data ownership?

What determines who is entitled to use data and what are the limit to such use?

How can data entitlements be managed successfully

Key issues were :

When managing data rights and entitlements

• Know the law

o Petroleum acts

o Regulations

o Copyright law

o What is public data

o Freedom of information

What happens if mistakes are made

• Lack of credibility

• Non cooperation from suppliers

• Contractor could go bankrupt

• Devalue contractor data.

Multiple versions of data.

Ownership

• Country owned via NOC/Regulator

• Acquiring company

• Data trades

• Relinquishments

• Farm out / in

Volunteers for follow up

Aliya Huseynova, Azerbaijan

Nomilah Jaffar, Malaysia

Andrew Ochan, Uganda

Inocencia Macluve, Mozambique

Elizabeth Ochieng, Kenya

German Arevalo, Columbia

NDR 10 proceedings

Breakout session 3 : How to manage distributed repositories

It is not usually possible to keep the entire ‘national’ data collection in one central place

but distributed data management techniques make this unnecessary anyway. In this

session delegates will share experience these techniques, and will discuss for example:

Complicating issues and their resolution (e.g. physical vs. digital information; and

public vs. private collections)

Centralised searching and browsing and the role of GIS and aggregated catalogues

The role of metadata and exchange standards

1. Examples of Distribution/Separation

• Physical/geographical separation

• Confidential versus public data

• Physical versus Digital Data

• Federal versus State

• Government versus Oil Companies e.g. slabbed rock core

• Separation by Data Type e.g. seismic post-stack versus field data

Separation of Data and metadata

2. Problems with Distributed Repositories

• Knowing what exists

• „Findability‟ – need to look in >1 place

• Cost of duplicated/inefficient systems

• Time to find data

• Measuring completeness

• Data integrity and reliability issues

• Inconsistent standards

• Inconsistent work processes

3. Solutions

• Centralise as much physical data as possible

But take Disaster Recovery measures

• One single integrated index (forms + GIS)

Needs Standards, Regulations, HR, Technology, Funding

Extend scope of index beyond NDR (e.g. IHS data)

Service-oriented

• Minimise unnecessary movement of data

e.g. co-locate core storage and core viewing

e.g. co-locate tape storage and copying/loading etc

• Set clear retention policies (what must be kept)

• Communicate with submitters and users

4. “Top Tips”

• Align laws and regulations with the solution

• Standards: Consult > Implement > Regulate

• Plan for change

• Look outside the oil industry for examples

• Centralise physical data if you can (or must) but above all, have a single index

• Adopt sensible retention rules

• Implement systems that reconcile what new data is expected with what is actually

received

NDR 10 proceedings

Breakout session 4 : How to manage physical data collections

NDRs invariably hold significant collections of valuable physical data such as paper-

based and other ‘hardcopy’ records, well cores and samples and magnetic media. This

group will discuss the challenges and solutions that are associated with managing these

collections, including:

Cataloguing practices – how much detail is necessary?

Preservation challenges and how they can be met

Digital conversion programmes – top tips for implementation

Issues

Collections are ever growing

Preservation, especially core, is a problem

Data familiarity when outsourcing

Storage ID of fluids

What is a sensible retention period

Discussion points

What should be retained

Best practice for storage of fluids – HSE issues

Audits and checks

Scanning – successes and failures

Successes and best practice

Scanning projects, reduced volume, enhanced access

OCR and scan – unstructured catalogue

Continual improvement

ISO accreditation

Follow up

No conclusion on retention policies, what is best or just “any” practice.

Storage of fluids – what standards or guidelines are in use.

NDR 10 proceedings

Breakout session 6 : How to archive for posterity

The data collected by NDRs has potential value which may stretch beyond the lifetime

of hydrocarbons in that country but few make any serious provision for its longer term

preservation.

Which (if any) petrotechnical data has potential value beyond hydrocarbons

The main challenges for a long term preservation policy

The solutions contemplated or developed by some countries

Key issues

Retention policy – what can be thrown away

Resources – people + money to manage all the data

How and why is all the data kept

Managing user expectations. Speed of access to old data, cost of storage.

Discussion points

Company and government perspectives are different. The government may be trying

to attract smaller companies and the more data the better.

Need to keep data for ever but copies can be disposed of once original QC‟d.

There are cost savings.

You cannot get data back once it is destroyed !

Successful exercises are often accompanies by database / data catalogues being considered

up front, meta data being produced and QC‟s at same time as cataloguing.

Success also requires a sound Data management organisation.

Problems identified included:

Poor scanned data.

Scanning data with OCR.

Poor OCR of data.

Hard drives not reliable for long term storage.


Data management department in Netherlands.

John Carlos (Shell)

Eunice uonzo – Data scanning

NDR 10 proceedings

Breakout session 9a – How is data quality measured

This was a popular session, run twice, these notes are a combination of both sessions.

Without the appropriate measures in place there is a risk that data received and

published by the NDR will contain serious quality problems. The delegates at this

session will discuss what these measures should be and whether there is scope to

coordinate these measures across NDRs.

Which data quality standards should be prescribed

How data quality standards can be measured

How data quality standards can be successfully enforced

Definition of quality

Quality means – meets requirements

Standard requirements need to be determined.

Requirements change as technology and data changes.

Legacy data will rarely meet standards – does that matter, could cost a lot to improve.

Quality levels should be recorded.

Metadata quality issues – what we need to get right

Positional / spatial attributes

Ownership

Dates

Compliance with standards for metadata (such as well name)

Description

Storage location

Completeness of record

Completeness of collection

Data Quality issues – what we need to get right

Readability (format and header issues such as LIS header)

Accuracy

Validity

Precision

Completeness

Issues and recommendations

Much more important to get Quality Assurance for the metadata than for the data itself

Legacy data requires more clean-up effort

Standards need to be agreed and adopted

QA must happen at or before submission

Certification of quality before submission by the submitter

Regulatory enforcement

Automate data quality checking processes

Prioritise the datasets that add most value

User feedback to improve data quality over time

NDR 10 proceedings

Breakout session 9b – How is data quality measured

Possible process

Quality should be specified in legislation

Operators supply quality data (actual data)

NDR QC data on receipt and loading (meta data)

If data does not meet standards need to decide if it is sent back.

Keep a record of data submitted.

Must be agreements and collaboration between providers and users.

Collaborating to develop data reporting standards

This will take time and effort. It was thought that

80% would be common (global) and

20% would be country specific

Start with basic things first – general set of key standards

Can we develop a worldwide certificate for data – Could Energistics take a role here ?

Create groups for different data types with a target of presenting at the next meeting.

Volunteers

Andrew Ochan – Uganda

Zakiah Zainel – Malaysia

Inocencia Maculive – Mozambique

Stephan Gruiters – Netherlands

Aliya Huseynova – Azerbeijan

Ferninand Aniwa – Ghana

Helen Stephenson – France

Marcus Alves – Oman

Joao Correa – Brazil

Luis Bacigalugo – USA

Telma Santos – Brazil

Samit Sengupta – UK

Pablo Moreira - UK

NDR 10 proceedings

Breakout session 11: Would oil companies benefit from global NDR standards

Oil companies would benefit greatly if NDRs were to adopt common procedures and

standards. Delegates in this session will explore where and how this could be achieved

and what has stopped collaboration in the past by examining the following:

Procedures used by oil companies that are generally common to all NDRs

Scope for standards and standard procedures

Challenges and enablers for implementation

To be posted later.

NDR 10 proceedings

Breakout session 14 : NDR organisation and funding

There are several different models used to fund and to manage NDRs. Delegates in this

session will identify the various models in play and will assess the merits of each, within

given circumstances, through the following discussions:

Identify the various organisational models in use for NDRs and the benefits and

disadvantages of each

Identify the various funding models used to fund NDRs and the benefits and

disadvantages of each.

The attendees recorded their NDRs as follows:

NDR Reports to Funded by Staff

W. Australia WA Dept M&P WA Dept M&P 10

Data Sales l

Malaysia Petronas (NOC) Petronas 15

Holland (E&P)TNO Min Econ Affairs 5

Data Sales

Kazakhstan Geol Survey/State Oil Companies 20

Data Sales

Colombia Ministry M&E Ministry M&E 25

(ANH) Down/loading

Brasil/BDEP ANP Ministry M&E 65

Oil Cos (to MME)

UK/CDA Oil & Gas UK Oil Cos 6+8

Staffing figures should not be compared as comparison were not made on a like to like basis.

An optimum Model could be:

• An NDR that is used and (co)funded by the Oil Companies

• Either as a single entity or „federated‟ in some way

NDR 10 proceedings

Breakout session 16 : Benefits of Repositories – Justifying an NDR

It is important that NDRs are able to respond successfully to occasional challenges to

justify themselves. This justification will often relate to the cultures of the particular oil

province and the initial justification for the NDR.

Demonstrating value is often not an easy task.

Arguments that have been successfully used to justify the status quo

Arguments can be used to obtain funding/resources for development

Need to make the value clear and is often intangible.

When the general management is not in the oil industry it is much more difficult to convince

people of the value of data.

The cost of acquisition data is very high compared to the cost of managing and preserving it.

Today‟s data may not lead to a discovery but new technology and new ideas may make data

valuable in the future.

Companies often reluctant to comply even though legislation is present.

Show cost in US dollars for consistency.

NDR mission

Collect store and manage data

Need facilities to keep data safe

Need data to attract new investors.

Companies leave countries and do not leave data behind

Tangible benefits and what is lost by not having an NDR

Tangible benefits – data sales

Politically – image of oil province

Commercially

Loss of investment

Unable to estimate reserves and potential revenues

Oil companies ask for copies of historical data they have lost.

Oil company perspective

Compatability between provinces

Obtaining regional data easily

Security of data

When data exchanged often companies have to pay 50% of the costs

Advice on trying to deliver and demonstrate value

Build up holdings gradually

Need good legislation –submission dates, release dates

Follow up with operators – compliance.

Availability of staff, motivation, career path.

NDR 10 proceedings

Breakout session 17 : How to re-tender an NDR

Many NDRs are operated under a fixed term technology and/or services contract with a

service provider. The retendering process brings the opportunity for service

improvement and reduced costs but also brings the risk of service interruption and even

data loss. This group will share positive and negative experiences associated with

retendering (in a commercially anonymous way) by discussing the following:

Appropriate initial commercial terms and conditions

Establishing operational and commercial preconditions for bid qualification

Tips for evaluating competitive bids

The representation in this session was :

NDR represented : 3

NDRs that have changed Technology/Service: 0

NDRs that plan to change Technology/Service: 3

This was a very lively session as there were conflicting views on how a re-tender could be

action effectively.

The perceived risks in changing supplier were in the areas of:

Data Migration,

Service Continuity.

What can be done to mitigate risks:

Data Standards applied (open models, data formats, etc),

available APIs and/or web services,

managed services,

contract and communication between three parties

Top Tips:

Plan, Plan, Plan

Try to level the playing field for new potential vendors/partners

Communication between three parties

Contract if possible between three parties

Good exit strategy from existing technology

CDA and DISKOS are very good contact points for this process as they have been through

the exercise more than once.

NDR 10 proceedings

Breakout session 19 : What is an NDR

NDRs share a common set of purposes although the relative importance of each may

vary between states and over time. This group will attempt to define the common

attributes shared by all NDRs.

‘National’ – must it be for a country as a whole or be greater or less than this?

‘Data’ – what data types are included within an NDR and what are excluded?

‘Repository’ – is the NDR simply a place where data is stored?

Who is an NDR ‘for’?

1. National Boundaries Can be part of a nation - a state (WA) or a region (UKCS)

Can include other international data (e.g. Diskos or CDA)

Ownership Usually a public organisation

Sometimes private (CDA or Diskos)

Regulations Must be a channel for regulatory data reporting (even CDA is this)

required under national laws.

This is the common denominator

2. Data

Forms of Information

Can be physical or digital and is usually both

Doesn‟t have to be a single system

Petroleum Industry

• Always includes well and seismic data

• Always technical data associated with petroleum E&P

• But can include information from other sectors (e.g. WA, TNO)

Beyond Technical Data

• Can extend to include fiscal and legal information

• Could include a knowledge database in future

Metadata

3. Repository

Functions & Features

• Secure storage (can be more than one site)

• Preservation

• Accessibility (data input/output)

• Index/catalogue

Location/Site

• Some governments insist that site must be in its own country

• Conceivable that location (although secure) is unknown

What’s in a Name? The function is important, not so much the word

4. What’s an NDR for? Promotion Licence rounds, public data, Value-added market

Regulatory Control Standards, Completeness and quality

Efficiency Cost sharing, Eliminates redundancy, Shared service for Oil Cos

National Purposes Conservation and recovery of oil and gas reserves

Resource for Ministry and NOC

Statistical reporting and analysis

NDR 10 proceedings

Breakout session 20 : Storing and sharing Production Data in an NDR

Many NDRs gather, store and publish production data. This group will explore the

associated issues and will consider the case for using open, non-proprietary data

standards such as PRODML (Production Markup Language) for interfaces between

software tools used to monitor, manage and optimize hydrocarbon production.

Key issues and discussion points

Purpose is to maximise the value of hydrocarbons to an oil province.

What data should be collected

PRODML is too complex, a subset is needed.

XML is preferred transfer route but there no agreed standards at the moment.

Collection varies from: by month per field to daily by well.

There is one example of second by second in Ghana.

Need more than production data, e.g. pressure data.

Volumes of data are not large compared to seismic therefore storage will not be a problem.

Successes

Nigeria – 80% compliant with requirements.

Netherlands, public have access

UK, very simple system, monthly by field.

Norway (not present) but new system being rolled out, based on principle of PRODML

Problems

PRODML TOO COMPLEX

Best practices

Daily by well is seen as the most appropriate for most cases as require volumes not too large.


Ferdinand Arriniog Ghana

Richard Salway CDA

Ugur Algan

Eric Atherton Data Horizon

Richard Garlick New Zealand

Alessandro Diniz

Rico Tunisfnl TNO

Geiza Powell

Quarin Michael GNPC

Fernando Jacob LMK

Tabita Loureiro ANP

.

NDR 10 proceedings

ANNEX F : COUNTRY REPORTS

Azerbaijan

Brasil

Canada – Nova Scotia

India

Kenya

Malaysia

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Oman

Pakistan

Turkey

UK - CDA

NDR 10 proceedings

Country Report

Azerbaijan

Name of the NDR What is the name of NDR?

ODLAR (Oil Data Library of Azerbaijan Republic)

Agency Responsibility Who is ultimately responsible – is it a ministry, an NOC or some other body?

SOCAR – State oil company

Geographical Scope What geographical area does the NDR include?

Offshore and Onshore Azerbaijan. The oldest hydrocarbon province in the world !

Status of the NDR Briefly describe the current status of the NDR (for example „Planned’; „Under Development’; Mature).

Under development

When did the NDR start? Give the date when the NDR started operations.

March 2010

Regulator’s Role Describe the role of the government‟s regulator in the NDR

SOCAR is regulator on behalf of the government

Operation of the NDR State who is responsible for NDR operations on a day to day basis

Fugro run the NDR together with SOCAR staff till March 2012, then full SOCAR operation 102 internal staff

Major purposes of the NDR Briefly describe (in order of importance) why the NDR was set up: for example:

Regulatory control

Promotion of the oil province

Cost savings

Data preservation

National archive

Anything else

Support activities of SOCAR. Preserve data generated by other companies. Overall historical and current data preservation and creating National Oil Archive is the main purpose but also interested in promoting licensing and integrating data with project work.

Data types & Volumes Medium Held in NDR Estimated Volume (include Units please)

Digital Hardcopy

Wells Yes 6000 (can be extended to 30000) Well Log Curves Yes

Well Reports Yes Cores & Samples Yes Seismic Surveys Yes

Post-stack Seismic Yes Field data/tapes

Seismic (Acquisition/Processing) Reports Yes Production Data Yes

Interpretative Maps & Reports Yes Add other significant Data Types:

Project (interpreted) data Yes

NDR 10 proceedings

Culture data yes Estimated total NDR size

Access Methods Describe how users access catalogues and data from the NDR

Web browser. Intranet via controlled entitlement

Data Submission Describe how data is submitted/loaded to the NDR

By end users at 20 sites (drilling, producing, geophysical) with final loading after quality control from SOCAR NDR Project Team

Data Publication/Release Describe the mechanism for the publication or „release‟ of data from the NDR

Publishing the lists (catalogues) of data. Downloads – by subscription/permissions/contract

Funding Model State the percentage funding contributed by the various funding parties for the NDR

Effectively governmental (100%)

Service Charges Describe how NDR users are charged for the NDR services they use

Mechanism to be developed. Will be charged based on volume/price lists for every data type, volume etc

Standards Used Describe any data and data management standards in use

ORACLE data base Standard data types to be stored (LAS, SEGY, etc)

Challenges Describe the main challenges faced by the NDR, for example in the following areas:

Organisational challenges

Data management problems

Funding

Technology

Data identification Resource availability. Performance Data standards for naming. Procedures of data collection (technology)

Successes Describe any significant successes of the NDR

Access by 3 languages, English, Azeri, and Russian

Lessons Learned Describe anything that you would have done differently if you were to set the NDR up today

SW has to be live demonstrated to client in advance. Demo data set should exist. Data availability, data lists, loaders team – to be identified and agreed in advance. Procedures for data collection – to be required from provider in clearly identified period. Standard data model – to be requested in first 3 months of project. Final data model to be developed and agreed with client in reasonable and clearly identified period. Clever project management is key for project success.

Website Links Provide any URLs that provide the reader with useful additional information on the NDR

Contact for information Please provide the name and email address for a contact person or persons

Dr Aliya Huseynova [email protected]


NDR 10 proceedings

Country Report

Brasil


Banco de Dados de Exploração e Produção (BDEP) – Exploration and Production Data Center


ANP – Agência Nacional do Petróleo – a regulatory authority for Oil and Gas activities, under the Ministry of Mines and Energy, is the responsible to operate and fund the data center


The whole Brazilian territory – It´s a national data center, including onshore and offshore


The Well Data store is mature The seismic Data store is mature The non-seismic data store is Under Development


05/29/2000


Entirely responsible for operations and funding – It’s a legal task for ANP (law n°9478/97)


- ANP civil servants for team administration - Outsourcing companies for IT - Outsourcing company to run Petrobank® MDS

All outsourcing services must be tendered


Regulatory control


Cost savings

Data preservation

National archive

Anything else

A key factor for companies wanting access to Brasil oil sector. Efficient and easy access to petroleum data essential for decision making. Support for companies biding in licensing rounds. Increase geological knowledge.


Digital Hardcopy

Wells 25,683 wells (2.03 TB) Well Log Curves Yes Yes 165,281 curves

Well Reports Yes Yes 18,031 reports Cores & Samples No Seismic Surveys 1,113 surveys

Post-stack Seismic Yes Yes 2,385 programs (15.01 TB) Field data/tapes Yes 217,078 tapes (3,194 TB)

Seismic (Acquisition/Processing) Reports Yes Yes Production Data No

Interpretative Maps & Reports Add other significant Data Types:

Non-seismic data (gravimetry, magnetometry, Gradiometry,

Yes No 658 surveys (2.23 TB)

NDR 10 proceedings

Gamaespectometric and Eletromagnetics

Estimated total NDR size 3.12 petabytes


Access catalogues on-line through Web Maps and e-mail contact


Data is submitted in Medias: CDs / DVDs / Tapes on-line data submission under construction


Only public data released to external users on CDs / DVDs / Tapes (no on-line data transfer yet)


Funded by ANP annual budget, but charges off set costs


Companies can sign annual plans (four plans available) or pay per request (with higher prices) Users are charged for the services of data maintenance and copying For seismic data: price per Gb For Well data: price per well For non-seismic data: prince per survey


ANP have developed a number of bespoke standards




Funding

Technology

- Bureaucratic process to tender new technology and specialized services

- Keep up with higher volume data acquisitions and new data types

- Data bases integration - Get most of the processes automated


- Implementation of the Integrated Management System – SGI

- Implementation of automated quality check for well data

- Pre-stack seismic data management with tape transcription and quality control

- Integrating with Petrobras data to transfer data.


Listen to users. Ensure adequate job instructions exist. Transfer responsibility for Quality Control to companies.


www.bdep.gov.br


Gustavo de Freitas Tinoco - [email protected] Fernando Gonçalves – fgonç[email protected]

http://www.bdep.gov.br/


mailto:fgonç[email protected]

NDR 10 proceedings

Country Report

Canada, Nova Scotia


Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board – Geoscience Research Centre- Digital Data Management Centre (DMC)


The CNSOPB is responsible for regulating the offshore Nova Scotia area for oil & gas exploration. The CNSOPB is a joint independent agency of the Federal and Provincial governments


Offshore Nova Scotia, Canada


The DMC would be considered developing with ongoing improvement


The DMC went live December 13, 2007


The CNSOPB is the regulator. They regulate the offshore area on behalf of both the provincial and federal governments


The DMC staff operate the data centre on a day to day basis. Schlumberger holds the service contact for two more years


Regulatory control


Cost savings

Data preservation

National archive

Anything else

- To provide an effective & efficient system for the management of digital petroleum data

- To assist explorers in easily obtaining access to large volumes of data via the web

- Data Preservation - Data Distribution


Digital Hardcopy

Wells 231 Wells Well Log Curves Yes Yes 10,000 Digital, 30,000 Hardcopy

Well Reports Yes Yes 231 Wells, 6,700 Images

Cores & Samples Yes

Core – 6,357 metres Sidewall Core – 14,508 Vials Washed Cuttings – 166,182 Vials Unwashed Cuttings – 139,746 Bags Geochemistry Samples – 11,549 Bags

Seismic Surveys 432 Programs Post-stack Seismic No

Field data/tapes Yes Only for 2 programs

NDR 10 proceedings

Seismic (Acquisition/Processing) Reports Yes Yes 432 Programs

Production Data Yes Yes

Interpretative Maps & Reports Yes Yes Add other significant Data Types:

Estimated total NDR size 2.3 Terabytes


Users access the data through a web based interface after obtaining a user name and password. The data can then be downloaded. SEGY for the two programs can be accessed via a FTP site


Currently data is submitted in hard copy and on a variety of media i.e. CD, DVD, DLT, LTO. Longer term vision includes electronic submission of all required data


The CNSOPB discloses data aftere the requisite period of confidentiality has expired i.e. Exploration Well, 2 years, Exclusive Seismic after 5 years, Speculative Seismic (Hard copy only) after 10 Years


The CNSOPB is funded 50/50 by the Federal and Provincial Governments with some funds from industry through cost recovery


The Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board provides access to all non-confidential geoscience information via the internet or onsite Free of Charge


The CNSOPB uses widely accepted industry standards i.e. LAS, DLIS, SEGY, etc.




Funding

Technology

- Initial DMC Project Staffing - Aggressive Timeline - Emphasis not put in the correct place at the time.

Funds should have been put in place for scanning and cataloguing of legacy data prior to opening DMC

- File size issues –Converting to a reasonable size in order to view online


- Project Upgrade to increase user functionality, August, 2009

- 100% of Well Reports and Logs (PDF) loaded to Decision Point, Completed 2010

- Loading LAS, completion expected March 2011 - Over 24,000 pieces of seismic data have been

scanned with an estimated 6,000 remaining


- Improve communications between vendor and client in order to best define the business requirements

- Start small then expand as required - Have the legacy data catalogued and scanned

prior to opening the DMC - Allow more time for the implementation phase


http://www.cnsopb.ns.ca/ http://ww1.cnsopbdmc.ca/dp/controller/PLEASE_LOGIN_PAGE


Mary Jean Verrall, Supervisor Geoscience Research Centre [email protected]

http://www.cnsopb.ns.ca/

http://ww1.cnsopbdmc.ca/dp/controller/PLEASE_LOGIN_PAGE


NDR 10 proceedings

Country Report

India


INDR (India national Data Repository)


DGH – Directorate of Hydrocarbons


Offshore and Onshore


In planning



Will be responsible for INDR


A contractor will be appointed on a turn key basis


Regulatory control


Cost savings

Data preservation

National archive

Anything else

Facilitate bidding rounds. Promotion of E&P activities. Creation of new business opportunities. Improve DGH’s ability to monitor and control the E&P activities and reporting. Data preservation and National archive.


Digital Hardcopy

Wells 8500 Well Log Curves Yes Yes 34,000 scanned logs

Well Reports Yes Yes Cores & Samples Seismic Surveys 1150 2D and 3D surveys

Post-stack Seismic Yes Yes Field data/tapes Yes

Seismic (Acquisition/Processing) Reports Yes Yes 2,300 Production Data No

Interpretative Maps & Reports Add other significant Data Types:

Estimated total NDR size 10 Tbytes


Web based. User terminals available in INDR centre

Data Submission All will be digital, self service loading by operator an

NDR 10 proceedings

Describe how data is submitted/loaded to the NDR

option. Some reports in hard copy.


Proprietary data after 5 years.


100% state funded through Oil Industry Development Board.


Not decided yet.


Will follow emerging standards.




Funding

Technology

Data collection Enforcement mechanism for data submission. Cooperation from E&P operators. Large volume of legacy data.


Is expected to provide significant thrust to E&P activities in India.


Gained from discussion with NPD, Norway. Operators involvement vital. Set short term goals.


www.dghindia.org


[email protected] [email protected]

http://www.dghindia.org/



NDR 10 proceedings

Country Report

KENYA


National Data Center (NDC


National Oil Corporation of Kenya is responsible for the data management


The data covers both both Off and Onshore locations


Data scanning at 86%

Document Management System implementation is ongoing

Well log digitization is planned for 2011

data & Seismic - Planned


2007 –NDC Master plan 2007 – data transcription 2009 – Document scanning 2010 – Document Management System Implementation


The data belongs to the Government and national Oil is the custodian The government fully funds the initiatives


National Oil Corporation of Kenya


Regulatory control


Cost savings

Data preservation

National archive

Anything else

Digital Data Preservation

National Archive

Implement integrated data management systems

Provide easy access to quality controlled data to both internal and external customers.

Attract oil and gas exploration investment.

Reduction of data management costs


Digital Hardcopy

Wells 32 Wells

Well Log Curves

Only for two

recent Wells

YES

500 well logs

Well Reports Yes Cores & Samples Seismic Surveys

Post-stack Seismic YES Field data/tapes YES About 2000 3590 tapes

Seismic (Acquisition/Processing) Reports YES NO Production Data No NO

NDR 10 proceedings

Interpretative Maps & Reports YES Add other significant Data Types:

Estimated total NDR size


Currently data access in National Oil is manual. All customers visit National Oil Data Center in Nairobi for review

Access to actual public documents is allowed on request.

For current Petroleum Sharing Contract areas, the data is confidential until the block is relinquished.

Thee document management system under implementation will allow online catalogue access for document listing and summary.


Data is submitted manually to National Oil through CD’s, 3590/3592 data cartridges or hardcopies,


Confidential data is kept secret until the exploration blocks are relinquished after which it reverts to public

Public data is available to all at minimal fee.


Government funded


Data is provided to Ministry of Energy (Parent Ministry) for free

Other customers (oil exploration companies) review data for free but get copies at a cost.


Seismic Data – SEGY

3590 or 3592 data cartridges

Challenges Describe the main challenges faced by the NDR, for Organisational example in the following areas:

challenges


Funding

Technology

Funding – Hardware and data management systems

Data Standards – Contents , Formats, metadata

Data Management Processes - Data Quality Assessment, Date Receipt, Storage and Distribution etc - Data Security , Retention & Disaster Recover

Incomplete legacy data –e.g seismic data without observer logs

Data Media and format changes making current media obsolete

Data management technical staff capacity - NDC project staff changes

IT infrastructure -Data growth + new systems require storage, memory, backups and ICT support planning.


Data management master plan

Data transcription from 9-track tapes to 3590 data cartridges

Data scanning (86%)

NDR 10 proceedings

Implementation of Document management system (in progress)

Seismic data quality control and re-formatting (in Progress

Lessons Learned

Describe anything that you would have done differently if you were to set the NDR up today

Would have used data scanning service providers

Top Management Support -For inclusion in the Corporate goals , HR Support,

Top Management support is essential.

ICT -Have Corporate goals/ICT business plan /Data Management Project aligned. -ICT is a must support data access, capture, movement and security requirements

Capacity Planning -Project team – train an retain

Data Standards (for each type of data) Content (e.g. definitions, units)

-Formats -Media (3590, 3592, CD, LTO) -Associated meta (index field) and support data

Data Management Processes -Data Quality Control (e.g rules for data completeness, values, audit, etc.) -Date Receipt, Storage and Distribution processes -Disaster Recovery -Storage facilities and asset security

Website Links

Contact for information

Please provide the name and email address for a contact person or persons

Eunice Kilonzo

[email protected]

NDR 10 proceedings

Country Report

MALAYSIA


PETRONAS EPDC (E&P Data Centre)


PETRONAS - NOC


Malaysia


Seismic- Mature Well – Mature Geospatial – Mature Interactive Map - Mature Core & geosample- Mature G&G Interpretation- Under development Production- Under development Drilling- Under development Surface Engineering- Under development


The foundation was laid out in 2004. With detailed roadmap developed in 2010.


PETRONAS is vested with the entire ownership and control of the domestic hydrocarbon resources for Malaysia, through its regulatory unit namely Petroleum Management Unit (PMU).


Data Management, PMU


Regulatory control


Cost savings

Data preservation

National archive

Anything else

Long term national archives to ensure seamless availability of data.

National archive

Data preservation

Regulatory control

Cost savings


Integrated


Digital Hardcopy

Wells 5807 wells (2092 wildcat/appraisal wells and 3715 dev/prod wells)

Well Log Curves x x 4519 wells at 773 Gb size

Tech Reports x x 91K

NDR 10 proceedings

Cores & Samples x 147K of samples with 23km of core samples

Seismic Surveys 851 surveys

Post-stack Seismic x x 725 surveys at 17TBsize

Field data/tapes x 115K tapes

Seismic (Acquisition/Processing) Reports x x 3427 reports

Production Data x x

Interpretative Maps x x 1004 shapefiles. Vector = 31 GB, Raster =6.2TB

Add other significant Data Types:

Surface Engineering

x x 330 platforms and 880 pipelines , 48,000 surface eng data (technical report & as-built drawings).

G&G Interpreted Project x

250 projects at 218 TB size


640 TB


Catalogues and data are access by internal users via GIS.


Both physical and digital data are submitted to PMU via media. Loading is being done via media.


Internal users: using web GIS to identify data and made request if data is offline. External users: make formal request via official letter.


PETRONAS 100%.


None


Established technical data standards based on industry practices ie: Energistic, GIGS and PETRONAS internal standards.




Funding

Technology

Recognition as technical skill group.

Staff development

Organisational awareness

Unclear/ un-define policy, procedures, standards and guidelines

Skill and capabilities


Established detail 3 year road map.


Perform detailed assessment studies and perform gap analysis on 3 key elements; process, people and technologies.


Not applicable


Zakiah Zainol [email protected]

NDR 10 proceedings

Country Report

The Netherlands


DINO


The Geological Survey of the Netherlands, a division of TNO


The Netherlands including offshore waters


DINO is mature. DINO’s successor, BRO, is planned


DINO started in 2004


In the Dutch Mining Act the Geological Survey of the Netherlands is appointed data manager of DINO


The Geological Survey of the Netherlands is data manager of DINO and operates DINO on a daily base


Regulatory control


Cost savings

Data preservation

National archive

Anything else

To archive subsurface data of the Netherlands in one repository and provide easy access to the data to encourage multiple use of data.


Digital Hardcopy

Wells > 1000 Well Log Curves yes > 1000

Well Reports yes > 1000 Cores & Samples no Seismic Surveys Couple of Tb’s

Post-stack Seismic occasional Field data/tapes

Seismic (Acquisition/Processing) Reports yes

Production Data yes +/- 950 active wells producing oil, gas or salt. Production data is collected at monthly base

Interpretative Maps & Reports yes Add other significant Data Types:

Licences yes Geological models yes

Estimated total NDR size couple

NDR 10 proceedings

of Tb’s


User can surf to www.nlog.nl and download information of boreholes (reports, logs etc), licences and production wells. The website also shows location of seismic lines. Seismic data files can be requested for at [email protected] WMS web service is another channel to download a part of the data stored in DINO.


Data is sent to DINO data management. They will inspect the data and upload them into DINO


Most of the data stored in DINO is public data. New data collected due to the Dutch Mining Act is published after some time, which is defined in the Mining Act.


100% government funding


No charges for data download. The customer is charged for the costs involved in digitizing analogue data. Non downloadable data are distributed by DINO data management for a small fee.


WMS web services. DINO uses own naming conventions.




Funding

Technology

DINO’s successor BRO is being planned at this moment. The Geological Survey of the Netherlands is responsible for daily DINO operations and the design and build of the BRO.


The government launched the plan for a new DINO, the BRO. The Geological Survey of the Netherlands plays an important role in designing and building the BRO. The role is also due to the good track record of DINO.


Lessons learned from DINO are utilized in DINO’s successor, the BRO. For example web services for data upload, validation and download.


http://www.nlog.nl/en/home/NLOGPortal.html


[email protected] (Rico Tönis)

http://www.nlog.nl/



http://www.nlog.nl/en/home/NLOGPortal.html


NDR 10 proceedings

Country Report

New Zealand


New Zealand Online Exploration Database


Ministry of Economic Development


New Zealand onshore and offshore out to the outer continental shelf


Unstructured reports and data - mature Structured post stack seismic data - immature Index of Field seismic data - mature (actual data held offline) Structured well data - immature Index of physical petroleum samples – mature Index of physical coal and mineral samples – under development Structure Mineral exploration geophysical/geochemical data – planning


April 2007 (live to public)


The regulator is also the operator of the NDR


Crown Minerals Ministry of Economic Development


Regulatory control


Cost savings

Data preservation

National archive

Anything else

To protect the asset (data preservation) To facilitate investment through:

Ease of doing business (improved access)

Improving perceptions of prospectivity

Accelerating exploration programmes that leverage earlier work

Aid in monitoring regulatory compliance Maximise the return to the nation by informing:

Public policy

Business strategy o investment promotion o allocation models o data acquisition programmes


Digital Hardcopy

Wells 1,057 Petroleum 10,752 Coal 7,908 Mineral

Well Log Curves 6,520 6,520 petroleum curves loaded as

NDR 10 proceedings

structured data 489 petroleum wells with unstructured wireline data (zipped LAS/DLIS) 16,780 wireline logs from coal drillholes

Petroleum Reports (includes wells and surveys)

4,044 reports

271GB, Plus 42,288 enclosures

Mineral reports 4,518 128GB, Plus 10,952 enclosures

Coal reports 2,054

63GB, Plus 4,413 enclosures

Cores & Samples 50,000 41,000 petroleum samples, ~808 coal drillhole samples, ~5,351 mineral drillhole samples

Seismic Surveys 618 surveys Post-stack Seismic 3365 3109 2D projects, 256 3D

Field data/tapes 26,249 26,249 lines

Seismic (Acquisition/Processing) Reports See

above

Included in reports listed above

Production Data Nil Nil Interpretative Maps & Reports Included in reports listed above

Add other significant Data Types: ?

Geophysical and geochemical data acquired in mineral and coal exploration – currently unstructured, incorporated as enclosures to reports

?

VSP – currently unstructured and incorporated as enclosures to reports

287

Seismic survey observer logs. Remainder unstructured and incorporated as enclosures to survey reports

?

GIS data and projects (minerals and coal) – currently unstructured and incorporated as enclosures to reports


2.5 TB loaded, 3.0 TB staged for loading. 40TB field data offline


Online access to all publicly entitled data catalogues. Immediate download of Archive objects. Online order submission for structured data. Users register (free).


Digital submissions – no hardcopy accepted (other than physical samples). Submitted to Crown Minerals on a variety of media (hard disk most common). Lodged, QA’d and loaded by Crown Minerals staff. We do have a number of projects underway with service providers helping to load legacy data.


All data released after 5 year confidentiality period or permit expiry (whichever occurs first).


50% funded via government, 50% funded by third party permit (license) fees paid by exploration companies.

NDR 10 proceedings

Country Report

NORWAY


Diskos – Norwegian National Data Repository


Norwegian Petroleum Directorate – NPD + Diskos Group of oil companies


Norwegian Continental Shelf - NCS


Digital well data store – mature Digital seismic data – mature Monthly production data - mature


1995


NPD manages the Diskos consortium on behalf of all participating oil companies. The NPD is the regulatory body responsible for E&P data reporting


Landmark Graphics (Halliburton) has a 6 year contract with the NPD (on behalf of the Diskos Group).


Regulatory control


Cost savings

Data preservation

National archive

Anything else

To ensure compliance with NPD reporting regulations for digital E&P data To reduce data redundancy To ensure that data is made generally available to the oil and gas industry and to society as a whole Long term preservation of data


Digital Hardcopy

Wells 6009 Well Log Curves 678 263

Well Reports 22 519

Cores & Samples

130 km of cores, 1.5 mill drill cutting samples. Oil samples are also available (stored at the NPD not in Diskos

Seismic Surveys 5924 2D and 13.207 3D Post-stack Seismic As above

Field data/tapes 20 surveys Seismic (Acquisition/Processing) Reports 3889

Production Data 0.03 GB data (monthly prod data only)

Interpretative Maps & Reports None Add other significant Data Types:

NDR 10 proceedings

Estimated total NDR size 160TB


Online access 24/7 through secure broadband connection so that actual data sets can be downloaded. In addition there is a public data portal with access to metadata,so that non-confidential data can be ordered.


All digital data in accordance with NPD reporting requirements is to be submitted (ftp server or on media) to the operator – Landmark for loading.


Data is released according to NPD data release mechanisms. This is done according to instructions from the NPD.


Costs are shared equally between all participating oil companies (48) in the Diskos consortium, including the NPD. In addition reporting companies pay to submit data.


All downloading of digital data through an online connection is subject to a NOK/MB charge. Data delivered on media is subject to higher rates.


SEG-Y for seismic data (currently only post-stack) All relevant well data standards such as LIS, DLIS, LAS, SPLA, SCAL etc. PDF and TIF are also used.




Funding

Technology

A challenge to reach consensus between big oil companies, small oil companies, newcomers etc. Non reporting of data is always a challenge, data quality issues can always be given more focus. Funding has not been a problem, Diskos has a robust business model that gives value for money to users. Software for the management of data is continuously developed but there will always be some technical challenges


Most oil companies have chosen to join the Diskos consortium. Many non-oil companies want to join. No companies still active in Norway have opted out.


Current business model works well, has been developed over time.

The wording of contracts needs full attention as interpretation of imprecise wording has caused problems.

Limited contract period to allow for tenders.

Only a few vendors actually offer NDR services

Data release is a very challenging issue.


www.diskos.com www.npd.no (see Fact pages)


Eric Toogood, Diskos Manager, NPD [email protected]

http://www.diskos.com/

http://www.npd.no/

NDR 10 proceedings

Country Report

Sultanate Of Oman


Oil & Gas Data Repository (OGDR)


Ministry of Oil & Gas (MOG)


All Oman


Seismic Data: under development Well & Log Data: Planned


Project started in 2007 Seismic data loading started 2010 Planned to start Well data in 2012


MOG set OGDR regulations.


MOG objective for OGDR to be run by its resources. Seismic is currently operated by Halliburton, and planned for the operation to be transferred to MOG.


Regulatory control


Cost savings

Data preservation

National archive

Anything else

Preserve data for perpetuity Promotion of oil & gas concession blocks. Regulatory Control.


Digital Hardcopy

Wells About 12,000 wells Well Log Curves No No

Well Reports No No Cores & Samples No Seismic Surveys 220 3D surveys, 16,000 2D lines

Post-stack Seismic Yes Field data/tapes Yes

Seismic (Acquisition/Processing) Reports Yes No Production Data No No

Interpretative Maps & Reports No No Add other significant Data Types:

VSP, micro-seismic, Yes No 1400 field VSP, Just started

Gravity & Magnetic Yes No 100 data sets, Just started Estimated total NDR size 300TB for seismic once loaded.

NDR 10 proceedings


Planned for web access to OGDR metadata


Tapes, external media, temporary dedicated network. Planned for self service for well data.


No publication release process in place.


MOG funded initial OGDR setup, and the running cost planned to be funded by concession operators which is cost recoverable.


Not yet set.


OGDR created a naming convention for seismic, Wells naming convention & other standards to be developed.




Funding

Technology

Limited knowledge on the quality of legacy data.


Too soon to report.


Too soon to report.


OGDR website is not published yet, but once published it can be accessed from www.mog.gov.om


Ali Alyahyaee, OGDR Manager [email protected] OGDR contact email [email protected]

http://www.mog.gov.om/



NDR 10 proceedings

Country Report

Pakistan


PPEPDR (Pakistan Petroleum Exploration and Production Data Repository)


DGPC (Directorate General of Petroleum Concessions)


On shore


Mature


2001


Joint venture with supplier


Halliburton – Petrobank


Regulatory control


Cost savings

Data preservation

National archive

Anything else

Regulatory control National Archive


Digital Hardcopy

Wells 1824 Well Log Curves Well Reports Cores & Samples Seismic Surveys Post-stack Seismic Field data/tapes Seismic (Acquisition/Processing) Reports Production Data Interpretative Maps & Reports Add other significant Data Types:

Estimated total NDR size 20 Terabytes


Web

NDR 10 proceedings


Dedicated team of Geophysicists and Geologists working in PPEPDR facility to populate all incoming technical data in NDR.



Supplier charges for use.



Bespoke




Funding

Technology

Licence cycles much longer than career cycles. Equal opportunities for all stakeholders


Standardisation of all technical data to common standards Transparency in Licence governance Improved interaction between government / companies Data centre self sufficient – no cost to government



www.ppedr.net


Saeed Akhtar [email protected]

http://www.ppedr.net/


NDR 10 proceedings

Country Report

TURKEY


PetroBank MDS


Turkish Petroleum Corporation (TPAO). It is NOC of Turkey.


36˚ - 42˚ northern parallel and the 26˚- 45˚ eastern meridian


Under Development


2007


General Directorate of Petroleum Affairs is main regulatory body. This body is responsible to Ministry of Energy of Turkey.


Turkish Petroleum Corporation (TPAO)


Regulatory control


Cost savings

Data preservation

National archive

Anything else

- Data(assets) preservation - Easy access to assets - Assets access controlling and auditing - Consolidation of assets - National archive - Central management of all assets - Reduplication efforts - Standardization of assets according to

international standards, naming conventions - Working with the most convenient assets

Data types & Volumes Medium Held in NDR

Estimated Volume (include Units please)

Digital Hardcopy

Wells 1477 - 4500 Well Log Curves 167,900 - 452,090

Well Reports 25,961 - 69,901 Cores & Samples 6,989 - 18,819 Seismic Surveys 682 - 1754

Post-stack Seismic 70 TB - 120 TB Field data/tapes - 150 TB

Seismic (Acquisition/Processing) Reports 2,298,500 - 3,701,778 pages Production Data - -

Interpretative Maps & Reports - - Add other significant Data Types:

NDR 10 proceedings



Via Power Explorer


Data is gathered, QCied, standardized and loaded with predescribed methods.



Our NDR project has been funded only by Turkish Petroleum Corporation


Service usage is free of charge


We follow the international and PetroBank data management standards




Funding

Technology

- Standardization of data - Gathering data from current various data storage

mediums - Loading mechanism of PetroBank MDS system - Keeping staff’s carefulness


We will be have prearranged data set first time


It will be first experience to correct for our untidy data



Murat YILMAZ, [email protected] Taner TANIS, [email protected] Nafuz TEMIZHAN, [email protected] M.Ugur GURCAY, [email protected] Aycan GULTEN, [email protected]

NDR 10 proceedings

Country Report

United Kingdom - CDA


CDA (part of the wider distributed NDR for the UK)


CDA is responsible. CDA is a collaborative venture and is owned by the UK oil and gas industry


UK offshore waters


The Well DataStore is Mature The Seismic DataStore is immature The DEAL website is Mature


The Well DataStore went live in 1995 DEAL started operations in 2000 The Seismic DataStore went live 2009


DECC has a consultative role (only)


Schlumberger operates CDA’s three services under contract to CDA (the contract is tendered every 5 years or so).


Regulatory control


Cost savings

Data preservation

National archive

Anything else

To save costs for licensees To improve access to data To comply with regulations


Digital Hardcopy

Wells About 10,500 wells Well Log Curves Yes No 73,000 curve files

Well Reports Yes No 320,000 images (reports) Cores & Samples No - Seismic Surveys 990 surveys (715 x 2D & 275 x 3D

Post-stack Seismic Yes No 17,088 datasets Field data/tapes No -

Seismic (Acquisition/Processing) Reports Yes No 3,000 reports/files Production Data No No -

Interpretative Maps & Reports No No - Add other significant Data Types:

VSP, deviation and test data Yes No 10,000 files

Estimated total NDR size 6 Terabytes

NDR 10 proceedings


A front-end allows registered users to search and browse available data over the Internet and to download all but the larger files on line (large seismic files are available on media). Some data types are available to subscribers only.


All well digital data can be submitted on-line by self-service. Some hardcopy data is submitted for scanning. Seismic trace data (SEG Y) is submitted on media.


CDA makes qualifying well data available to DECC’s ‘release agents’ (who publish the data under licence). CDA licences qualifying post-stack seismic data on behalf of the owning licensees.


Oil companies fund almost all the costs of the NDR – only 1.5% is government funded.


CDA is run as a not-for-profit company and participating oil companies pay a fair proportion of the costs in accordance with an agreed schedule of charges. DECC enjoys all CDA’s services free-of-charge. Non-members can access seismic data at cost (follow URL below).


CDA has adopted DECC’s naming standards for wells and surveys and continues to work closely with DECC and industry to identify a range of standards (see the CDA and DECC websites for more on this):




Funding

Technology

The main and continuing challenge for CDA is data content (data and metadata completeness and quality).


The service-based operational and commercial model (CDA doesn’t own any hardware or any application licenses).


Would have started the Seismic DataStore earlier.


https://www.cdadatastore.com/dp/jsp/PleaseLogin.jsp https://www.ukdeal.co.uk/dp/jsp/PleaseLoginDeal.jsp https://www.og.decc.gov.uk/regulation/pons/index.htm http://www.cdal.com https://www.ukdeal.co.uk/dp/pages/deal/CDA%20Seismic%20DataStore%20Price%20List.pdf


Malcolm Fleming (CEO) [email protected]

https://www.cdadatastore.com/dp/jsp/PleaseLogin.jsp

https://www.ukdeal.co.uk/dp/jsp/PleaseLoginDeal.jsp

https://www.og.decc.gov.uk/regulation/pons/index.htm

http://www.cdal.com/

https://www.ukdeal.co.uk/dp/pages/deal/CDA%20Seismic%20DataStore%20Price%20List.pdf

https://www.ukdeal.co.uk/dp/pages/deal/CDA%20Seismic%20DataStore%20Price%20List.pdf


NDR 10 proceedings

Annex G : DR10 Evaluation Forms: Feedback Summary &

Analysis

OVERVIEW

Forms returned ...................................................................50

Breakdown of returns:

NDRs/NOCs ..........................................................28 56%

Vendors/Consultants ..............................................20 40%

Independent Oil Companies .....................................1 2%

Other ........................................................................1 2%

CONFERENCE ORGANISATION

Evaluation Averages

Ranked from 1 („very poor‟) to 5

(„excellent‟)

Average

Information sent out before the event 4.0

Information provided during the event 4.2

Venue facilities and services (Lunch etc) 4.3

Opportunities for networking 4.5

Overall rating of Conference Organisation 4.3

Comments

Cultural events outside hotel if possible

Registration link not available at website

Before the event please remind each participant who needs to give a presentation

A little confusing about breakout sessions

Would prefer city centre [Venue]

Really the organisation was excellent!!

Good but no variety in food [Venue]

Evening events helped [Networking]

Country reports are handy to have before

VENDOR PRESENTATIONS

Evaluation averages:

Ranked from 1 („very poor‟) to 5

(„excellent‟)

Average

Schlumberger 3.4

Landmark 3.5

Fugro 3.7

Comments

Was specified „latest development topics‟ in agenda but didn‟t cover this [all vendors

The process of designing an NDR was great [Schlumberger]

Presented [something] that doesn‟t exist [Schlumberger]

Building construction? [Schlumberger]

NDR 10 proceedings

Poor microphone use [Schlumberger]

Building activities, core business of SLB? [Schlumberger]

Poor idea [Schlumberger]

So what? [Landmark]

A bit too general [Landmark]

Too general [Landmark]

A bit fuzzy [Landmark]

Open minded [Fugro]

BREAKOUT SESSIONS

The table below shows an analysis of the returns for the breakout sessions. The first two

columns show the breakout number and title. The third and fourth columns show the

number of delegates who evaluated each session and the average of the scores they

awarded for each session (from 1 „very poor‟ to 5 „excellent‟). The fifth column ranks

each breakout by the average score awarded.

The final column indicates the number of delegates who expressed interest in being

involved in follow up on the topics listed (see the second tab on the spreadsheet for the

names of the individuals concerned).

Ref Breakout Title Replies Avg Rank Follow-

ups

16 Benefits of repositories –

justifying...

4 4.75 1 5

19 What is an NDR? 8 4.50 2 5

6 How to archive for posterity 4 4.25 3 6

20 Storing and sharing production

data...

9 4.22 4 8

4 How to manage physical data... 10 4.20 5 11

11 Would oil companies benefit from... 6 4.17 6 4

9 How data quality is measured 16 4.00 7= 12

14 Different organisational and

funding..

1 4.00 7= 4

12 How to raise the profile of DM 8 3.88 9 11

3 How to manage distributed data... 7 3.86 10 6

2 How to handle data rights and... 6 3.83 11 6

7 Using an NDR to promote inward.. 5 3.80 12 3

1 Well naming conventions 7 3.71 13= 7

17 How to re-tender an NDR 7 3.71 13= 11

10 How NDRs are linked to

regulatory... These topics were

eliminated due to low

interest from delegates

0

13 Deep water drilling and the env... 0

15 NDRs – insource or outsource... 0

18 Environmental controls in storage... 6

5 Applying retention policies These were removed by

the Committee

3

8 Enforcement of an NDR‟s rights... 1

Overall Totals/Average 98 4.0 109

NDR 10 proceedings

MEETING EXPECTATIONS

Delegates were asked to rate how well the Conference met their overall expectations:

Count %

Not as good as I expected 1 2.1

About what I expected 25 52.1

Better than I expected 22 45.8

Total Responses to this question 48

INCREASED KNOWLEDGE

Delegates were asked how much the conference had increased their knowledge and

understanding of an NDR. Analysis of their responses is ovided below (classified by topic):

Increase in Knowledge

1 = none; 5 = very much indeed

Count %

1 0 0

2 3 6

3 11 22

4 24 48

5 12 24

MOST ENJOYED

Delegates were asked to list up to three things that they enjoyed most about NDR10. An

analysis of their responses is provided below (classified by topic):

Count %

Networking 46 36

Breakout Sessions 27 21

Country Reports 15 12

Location 12 9

Social Programme 11 9

Organisation & Format 8 6

Vendor Exhibits 6 5

Access to Expertise 6 5

Openness 1 1

Total 132

LEAST ENJOYED

Delegates were asked to list up to three things that they enjoyed least about NDR10. An

analysis of their responses is provided below (classified by topic):

Count %

Organisation & Format 19 32



Hotel 7 12

NDR 10 proceedings

Location 2 2

Sound Quality 2 2

Total 60

A more detailed commentary is provided below:

There were 15 negative comments about the length of some Country Reports

There were 15 complaints about the breakouts: 5 about only being able to select three;

3 complaints about the number/mix of attendees; 1 that they were too short; 3 about

the moderators; and 3 about the way they were organised.

There were 2 complaints about the conference location being too far away from the

city centre.

There were 2 complaints about poor sound quality

There were 7 complaints about the Intercontinental; 2 were general in nature; 2 were

about the a/c; 1 about the poor WiFi; 1 about the shortage of bedrooms; and 1 about

the coffee (!)

There were 19 various complaints about the organisation and format of the

conference: 4 were about all the events being held at the hotel; 2 complaints about

there being no time to ask questions. There was no clear pattern to the remaining 13.

CHANGES FOR NDR11

Delegates were asked to list up to three things that they would like to see/be changed at

NDR11. An analysis of their responses is provided below (classified by topic):

Count %

General Programme 13 18

Content & Specific Topics 15 21



Cultural Events 4 5

Delegate Composition 5 7

General Comments 12 16

Total 73

A more detailed commentary is provided below:

Delegates named 15 specific topics that they would like to see covered at NDR11

There were 14 comments about breakout sessions; 2 concerned their moderation (not

vendors, use NDR reps); 3 asked for more breakouts; 4 asked for fewer (but deeper)

breakout sessions; 2 proposed that delegates be asked to make their selections ahead

of the conference (!); and one asked for assurances about the presence of „experts‟ at

those sessions requiring them (e.g. NDR retendering).

There were 13 comments on the conference programme (but no particularly strong

themes within this).

Almost all of the 10 comments about Country Reports were about the need for a

standard report of fixed duration.

Two delegates would like cultural events to be held away from the hotel venue and

one evening free of cultural events.

NDR 10 proceedings

Comments on the type of delegates to be invited included 3 asking for more vendors

(including some named parties) and 1 for fewer; there was 1 call for IOCs to be

invited.

The 12 general comments included 1 call for a cheaper hotel and a mixed bag of other

comments with no particularly strong theme.

SOCIAL PROGRAMME

Feedback on the social programme was consistently very positive as shown in the table

below:

Event Count Average

Icebreaker 43 4.5

Copeira 42 4.3

Samba 40 4.3

Christ the Redeemer 11 4.8

Boat Trip 5 4.8

Petropolis 5 4.4

Overall 33 4.3

report on proceedings of ndr10 held in rio …...ndr 10 proceedings page 5 some of the comments in...

Documents