PON9 Workshop 2004

1
PON9 Workshop 2004 Jointly sponsored by DTI and
UKOOA Aberdeen 13th May London 17th May
2
PON 9 Workshop 2004 1. Welcome
Introduction Simon Toole, DTI (London) Paul
Dymond, UKOOA (Aberdeen)
3
PILOT

• DTI, UKOOA and industry working together
• Workshop an important milestone
• Government commitment to digital business
• Changes to regulations requiring industry
  compliance

4
PILOT Data Initiative

• KEY DATES
• Oct 2001UKOOA Exploration Committee workgroup
  set up
• Feb 2002PILOT / PPWG workgroups established
• May 2003UKOOA Exploration MRT endorsement
• May 2004One year on, what has been happening?

5
PILOT Data Initiative

• THE TARGET
• Improve knowledge DEAL Data Registryof data
• Reduce costs DEAL Data Registry NHDA
• Improve data access Earlier data release
• Prevent deterioration NHDAof data
• Eliminate redundant NHDAdata DEAL Data
  Registry

6
Implementation Scope

• PON9
• Been out to industry for consultation
• Will be issued on 1st July 2004
• DEAL Data Registry
• Complete seismic atlas
• 2004 data catalogue proposals
• National Hydrocarbons Data Archive
• Open for business - several operators archiving
• Web-based Archiving Handbook

7
Summary

• This work is important
• You can influence what happens
• Your involvement is vital

8
PON 9 Workshop 2004 2. The Workshop Russell
Hornzee, DTI
9
Objectives for the Day

• To highlight proposed procedural and regulatory
  changes and the need for you to comply with them
• To give you the opportunity to influence both
  timing and detail of the changes

10
Workshop Agenda

• 1. Welcome Introduction Paul Dymond(A)/Simon
  Toole(L) 1000
• 2. The Workshop Russell Hornzee 1015
• 3. PON9 Overview Jackie Banner 1030
• Coffee 1115
• 4. DEAL Data Registry Peter McCartney 1130
• Lunch 1215
• 5. Data Standards Stewart Robinson 1300
• 6. NHDA Archiving Process Malcolm Fleming 1345
• Coffee 1430
• 7. Panel Session - QA Panel 1500
• 8. Next Steps Russell Hornzee Malcolm
  Fleming 1545
• Workshop closes 1600

11
Your Role

• To participate actively and influence the detail
  of the changes

12
Outcome from today

• A clearer understanding, enabling compliance with
  the regulatory and procedural changes
• An understanding of the procedure and benefits of
  the NHDA option
• Slides (with added QAs) will be made available
  no later than 21st May

13
PON 9 Workshop 2004 3. PON9 Overview Jackie
Banner, DTI
14
PON9 Overview

• Outline of the Presentation
• Scope and Purpose
• Why change now?
• Proposed changes
• Feedback from consultation
• Next Steps Publication, Compliance
• Questions

15
Scope

• Activity under Petroleum Production Licences and
  Exploration Licences
• All Seaward Surveys
• All Seaward Exploration, Appraisal and
  Development Wells

16
Purpose

• Define Licensees obligations with respect to
  retention and provision of data from surveys and
  wells
• Define DTIs requirement for data from surveys
  and wells

17
Why change now?

• PILOT Data Lifecycle Initiative
• Requirements set out in revised PON9 agreed in
  principle through consultation with industry,
  UKOOA and PILOT
• Endorsed May 2003
• Now 1 year on framework established, time to
  comply !

18
Proposed Changes

• Better describes obligations and rights regarding
  Licence Data
• Reflects DTIs just-in-time not just-in-case
  strategy - implemented through the DEAL Data
  Registry
• DTI will only directly request the data
• required to perform business functions or
• for publication by DTI or its agents
• Introduces the option to archive to the NHDA
• Includes new requirements for well and seismic
  survey headers
• Reflects the Governments digital business agenda

19
DEAL Data Registry

• This is the main change
• A register of key proprietary and released
  licence data - who owns it and where it is
  stored.
• Features
• Standard catalogues to be submitted to DEAL
• Submission by the licence operator
• Only entitled parties will be able to see the
  catalogues
• Cores and samples catalogues from all licensees
• Gradual, point-forward implementation starting in
  2004
• Gradual addition of key legacy data from 2005
• Public catalogues of released well data from the
  release agents
• Public catalogues of archived data from the NHDA
• Catalogues subject to DTI scrutiny for
  completeness

20
Data to be sent directly to DTI

• Cores and Cuttings samples
• (fluid samples to be retained by Licensees for 5
  years)
• Seabed samples
• Paper print of Composite Log
• Seismic Navigation Data (DEAL)

21
Data for Publication (Release)

• Clear definition of Basic Licence Data for
  release
• Clear start of clock for Confidentiality
  Period
• Clear statement of release process
• Well Data to be made available to DTI/agents 12
  months prior to release date
• Seismic Data UKOOA/IAGC Guidelines for release
  by Licensees (to be posted on DEAL)

22
Option to Archive to the NHDA

• DTI strongly supports the NHDA
• DTI encourages Licensees to consider Archive
  option at Licence relinquishment / Cessation of
  Field Production
• Licensees gain relief from perpetual storage
  obligation
• NHDA Catalogue will become a requirement at
  COP, and encouraged at Licence relinquishment

23
Feedback from Consultation (1)

• DEAL Data Registry catalogues concerns on
  content, timing, updates
• Question on joint and several obligations why
  not just Operator?
• PON9 to contain more definitions on content
  e.g. composite log, completion report
• Flow diagram

24
Feedback from Consultation (2)

• Composite Log paper print only to DTI (no
  transparency)
• Navigation data supply within 6 months, DVDs
• Reprocessed products will be required on Data
  Registry (entitlements)
• Seismic Redundancy
• Seabed samples

25
Next steps - Publication

• Incorporate changes from feedback and workshops
• Circulate to UKOOA etc. prior to June UKOOA
  Exploration MRT
• Publish 1st July annual revisions

26
Next steps - Compliance

• Compliance will be monitored easier to do
  through DEAL Data Registry
• No excuse you are helping to design compliance
  rules !
• DTI/CDA working together CDA wishes own dataset
  complete
• Spot-check and audit
• Consent process allows control

27
Questions and Answers
28
QA PON9

• Q.01 In Norway, licensees have agreed that their
  collective responsibility for data is met
  exclusively through the operator, acting on their
  behalf. This approach offers significant cost
  savings - why cant it be done in the UK too?
• A. This is done to some extent (through CDA for
  example), but there is scope for closer
  collaboration of this type at a practical level.
  This however cannot of course remove the joint
  and several obligations that each company has
  under the licence agreement.
• Q.02 Will non-CDA members have to send digital
  well data to Gilmerton from July 1st?
• A. For wells spudded before January 1st 2004
  there is no change non-CDA members must continue
  to send in well data as hardcopy/tapes.
• For wells spudded from January 1st 2004 onwards,
  the DTI only wants to receive a paper print of
  the composite log at its Victoria Street office
  no digital data should be sent to either the DTI
  or to Gilmerton. For these wells non-CDA members
  must however provide a catalogue of their well
  data to DEAL.
• For these 2004 wells, CDA will meet the
  obligations of its members to submit well data
  catalogues to DEAL, however CDA members must send
  the data to CDA within the prescribed time in
  order for the complete catalogue to be prepared
  for DEAL.
• Q.03 What would be the data release arrangements
  for seismic data shot by an oil company as
  speculative data (i.e. 4 years or 10 years)?
• A. This situation has not arisen and would need
  to be considered further by the DTI.

29
QA PON9

• Q.04 Are there any legal obligations to be
  changed to enable the new PON9 to be implemented?
  
• A. The only legal change was the reduction of
  the confidentiality period from 5 to 4 years for
  pre-20R Licences. This was done by exchange of
  letters last year.
• Q.05 Compliance mechanisms what does DTI
  consider teeth?
• A. The DTI has worked with Industry over many
  years to build trust through consultation. The
  DTI trusts that companies will comply, and is
  implementing a model endorsed by all stakeholders
  through a consultation process. Ultimately, DTI
  could withhold consents on surveys/wells, revoke
  Licences or take behaviour into account when
  issuing new Licences.
• Q.06 What about non-geological data types
  collected during site, pipeline surveys etc. ?
• A. The PON9 only covers the geoscience data from
  surveys and wells.
• Q.07 Why will data listings be a requirement at
  COP ?
• A. It is essential to gather a listing of all
  field related data and reports whilst expertise
  is still available. Experience with Argyll and
  Hutton shows that it is very difficult to do this
  once the people in the know have disbanded.
  COP is also a good time to archive, since budget
  for the asset is available.

30
QA PON9

• Q.08 Why isnt such a data catalogue also
  mandatory at Licence relinquishment?
• A. Less of an issue than fields there are
  usually just a few exploration wells and seismic
  surveys (which should already be catalogued on
  DEAL). Could be made mandatory if a Licence is
  being relinquished due to a work programme
  waiver.
• Q.09 What happens to data ownership at Licence
  transfer?
• A. Changes of interest in a Licence require DTI
  consent (conditional on the Model Deed of
  Assignment being executed). The Deed covers
  all assets and liabilities including data.
• Q.10 What is Licence Data? Not just basic
  (purely factual), but also interpreted?
• A. The Model Clauses cover all data acquired
  during the term of the Licence the well and
  survey data is just a subset. The PON9 defines
  the Basic Licence Data for surveys and wells.
  The DTI has a right to request all Licence Data
  but may be challenged on the release of any
  deemed to be commercially sensitive by the
  Licensees. Similarly, the NHDA may request data
  outside the Basic Licence Data, but its inclusion
  in the NHDA collection is likewise a matter of
  negotiation.
• Q.11 What are the obligations for spec. data?
• A. Spec. companies are required to provide
  navigation data to DEAL. Spec. data is also a
  candidate for archiving. DTI will be kicking
  off a project to establish guidelines for both
  seismic redundancy and archive of spec. data.

31
QA PON9

• Q.12 What if the seismic data is not available
  when requested for release? What will the DTI
  response be? Has the DTI ever checked up on
  anyone?
• A. The DTI will consider this matter further.
• Q.13 Where are the legal obligations for data
  written ?
• A. The main data requirements are set out in the
  Model Clauses associated with the licence
  agreements (which can be found at
  http//www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1999/19990160.htm).
  The PON9 defines the what and when. The
  expectation is that data is maintained in a
  useable format and is transcribed to the
  recommended media on request to supply to DTI or
  for release.
• Q.14 What are the plans for developing Guidelines
  for redundant seismic ?
• A. These will be developed between now and the
  end of the year, along with the archive process
  for spec. data. Volunteers are welcome for the
  workgroup and should contact Jackie Banner.
• Q.15 What are the obligations for seismic field
  tapes ?
• A. Field tapes are the responsibility of
  Licensees and must be released on request under
  the DTI/UKOOA Seismic Data Release Guidelines.
  They are part of the NHDA shopping list, but
  archiving to the NHDA is optional and the final
  data set is open to negotiation.

32
QA PON9

• Q.16 What is the timing on conversion of 9-track
  data ?
• A. The Licensee is required to retain its data in
  usable condition and to provide data to the DTI
  upon request, in the format requested (which
  obviously will not be 9-track). Whilst it is not
  the DTIs intention to instruct licensees to
  convert 9-track data en masse, Licensees must
  ensure that they are able to comply with the
  regulations and it would therefore be prudent to
  upgrade to modern media when prompted by other
  business events e.g. when reprocessing, when
  satisfying external requests for the data under
  the DTI/UKOOA Seismic Data Release Guidelines or
  when trading data. The archive process offers an
  endgame for any rump remaining in older formats
  insofar that only selected datasets will finally
  need to be upgraded to the prescribed modern
  media - the NHDA will generally not require old
  seismic data that has been overshot.

33
PON 9 Workshop 2004 4. DEAL Data Registry Peter
McCartney, CDA
34
(No Transcript)
35
DEAL Data Registry Objectives

• To provide a complete inventory of UKCS wells,
  seismic surveys and infrastructure
• To provide access to well, seismic and
  infrastructure data attributes
• To provide catalogues of well and seismic data
  products
• To provide contact details for data owners

36
Attributes of data types

• Wells
• Well headers
• Well mapping
• Well ownership
• Seismic
• Seismic metadata
• Seismic navigation mapping
• Seismic ownership

37
(No Transcript)
38
(No Transcript)
39
(No Transcript)
40
Infrastructure Attributes

• Infrastructure
• mapping
• details
• ownership

41
Attributes of data types

• Slide showing infrastructure mapping

42
Public Information - Well Data

• Well Header (includes Release status)
• Data Release Agent (DRA) catalogues of well
  products (Released wells)
• Gilmerton cores catalogue (Released wells)
• Data Vendor catalogues (Products for sale)
• NHDA data

43
Well Data Products

• Slide showing Well Products

44
Products of data types

• Slide showing Gilmerton Cores catalogue

45
Public information - Seismic Data

• Seismic atlas
• Seismic metadata
• Gilmerton 2D sections catalogue (Released
  seismic only)
• Data Owner catalogues (Released
  seismic only)
• Data Vendor catalogues (Products for
  sale)
• NHDA seismic data products

46
Products of data types

• Slide showing Gilmerton Catalogue

47
Entitlement
DTI Gilmerton
Data Owner
Catalogue Source
DEAL
Well Seismic Catalogues
Cores Seismic Catalogues
Public subset for Gilmerton catalogues
Entitlement from Data Owner Public subset from
Data Owner (if authorised by Data Owner)
Public subset
Entitled subsets
Public subset
DTI
Data Owner
Catalogue Visibility
Public
Entitled Party
48
Non-public catalogues

• Catalogues seen only by DTI and Data Owner
• Wells
• Data Owner catalogues of well products
• Data Owner catalogue of cores
• Seismic
• Data Owner catalogues for unreleased seismic
• Data Vendor catalogues for products marked as
  not for sale

49
Catalogue submission

• Catalogue submission forms on DEAL
• Wells
• Cores
• Seismic

50
Catalogue submission

• Slide showing catalogue submission downloads
  screen

51
Submission forms

• Available on DEAL
• Timetable for roll-out of catalogues required
  submission by Data Owners.

52
Catalogue Development Implementation
Catalogue Version Compliance Date Availability
of Catalogue Well Cores DTI Core
Store Now Now All cores October 2004 Now Well
Cuttings DTI Core Store October 2004 June
2004 All cores October 2004 June 2004 Well
Logs Released Now Now CDA June 2004 June
2004 New wells (gt 2004) October 2004 June
2004 Well Reports Released Now Now CDA June
2004 Now New wells (gt2004) October 2004 June
2004 Seismic 2D DTI (pre-93) Now Now New
seismic (gt2003) October 2004 June 2004 Seismic
3D New seismic (gt2003) October 2004 June 2004
53
Catalogue Development

• Each new catalogue will be tested against Data
  Owner in-house catalogues before launch
• Each data type will be launched with limited
  datasets to allow any adjustments needed to
  finalise the catalogues

54
Data Ownership

• Only Data Owners can submit catalogues.
• Where ownership is incorrect on DEAL the existing
  owner must advise BGS of the name of the new
  owner.
• The new owner will be contacted by BGS with a
  request to validate ownership and supply the
  relevant catalogue

55
Data Ownership

• Slide showing Data Ownership details on DEAL

56
Compliance

• DTI will monitor compliance
• No new seismic consents for companies that have
  not completed their PON14a close out form for the
  previous years seismic

57
Questions and Answers
58
QA DEAL Data Registry

• Q.01 Who will be responsible for sending in
  catalogues to DEAL?
• A. In the majority of cases this will be the
  Licence Operator acting on behalf of all partners
  in a licence, however the DTI would like all
  licensees to provide catalogues of cores and
  cuttings.
• Beyond these regulatory obligations, there will
  be benefits for licensees to use DEAL to
  consolidate their catalogues, giving them the
  opportunity to view and then rationalize their
  data collections even potentially using this
  mechanism to help resolve ownership and licence
  liability.
• Q.02 Why does the DTI want a catalogue of cores
  when it has the cores themselves in Gilmerton,
  and why does the DTI not adopt the Canadian model
  (which prohibits sampling of the regulators core
  sections)?
• A. Many of the Gilmerton cores have been sampled
  and may not therefore be as complete as the
  slabbed sections retained by licensees.
  Experience shows that in some cases, core has
  never been submitted to Gilmerton.
• It is probably too late to adopt the Canadian
  model.
• Q.03 Why is the DTI intending to require
  catalogues of reprocessed seismic also to be
  submitted to DEAL Data Registry? This is not
  practical, nor is reprocessed data required by
  the NHDA.
• A. Good point, the DTI will review its position.

59
QA DEAL Data Registry

• Q.04 CDA can only submit catalogues for basic
  (well) data to DEAL on behalf of CDA members.
  Is there a requirement therefore for licensees
  separately to submit catalogues to DEAL of any
  other classes of well data that fall outside
  CDAs scope?
• A. The only significant outlier appears to be
  seismic well data and CDA is currently looking at
  the feasibility of extending the scope of the CDA
  DataStore to include this data type.
• Q.05 How can the DTI be confident that non-CDA
  members are keeping their well data in a proper
  fashion if the data is no longer actually sent to
  the DTI. The Data Registry is one thing but
  would it not be sensible for the DTI, its release
  agents or CDA to collect this (digital) non-CDA
  member data at the time the data is still fresh
  ?
• A. The DTI will consider this matter further.
• Q.06 Which are the master seismic headers and
  well headers on DEAL, with the DTI or on the CDA
  DataStore?
• A. The well headers and seismic headers on DEAL
  are the masters (and are kept in synch. with the
  CDA DataStore headers).
• Changes to either well or seismic headers should
  be made on DEAL, using the forms available from
  the site.

60
QA DEAL Data Registry

• Q.07 Considerable confusion regarding who
  actually owns data persists who therefore is
  responsible for submitting catalogues to DEAL and
  who has liability to the DTI?
• A The PON9 draft is clear on these matters. But
  bear in mind that (1) implementation of the Data
  Registry will be gradual and will be
  point-forward and (2) CDA/UKOOA is holding a
  workshop in June to explore the issue of data
  ownership, data liability and best practices
  associated with information exchange upon asset
  sale and purchase.
• Q.08 Will Licensees be expected to verify their
  catalogues as provided to the DEAL Data Registry?
• A Point-forward (i.e. for new wells and new
  seismic surveys) a requirement to verify is
  perhaps reasonable. A different and more
  pragmatic view may have to be taken with respect
  to catalogues for legacy data. This matter will
  be considered further by the DTI.
• Q.09 Why go to the trouble of entitling the Data
  Registry Catalogue (a lot of work) it is just a
  catalogue?
• A. The public has no intrinsic right to see
  catalogues of Licensees proprietary data. The
  reason therefore that catalogues are entitled is
  to protect this right (which of course the
  Licensees may opt out of, but this is their
  choice).

61
QA DEAL Data Registry

• Q.10 Can data storage companies help with the
  Data Registry catalogues ?
• A. Yes. Operators can instruct data storage
  companies to submit catalogues on their behalf.
  Operators should collaborate with data storage
  companies to simplify the process and this could
  potentially be done collectively for CDA members.
  
• Q.11 Will the Data Registry catalogue scope be
  extended beyond seismic and well cores? When?
• A. The 2004 plan includes well data catalogues
  for wells spudded after 1st January 2004 and for
  seismic surveys acquired since January 2003. The
  plan is to start population of the legacy
  catalogues from 2005. Companies with a lot of
  data should get in touch with DEAL, as help is
  available to walk through the process together.
• Q.12 It has proved difficult to associate data
  with a licence. For point forward data, will the
  Licence Number be an attribute on each well and
  seismic header?
• A. Yes, this will be put in place in DEAL as soon
  as possible.
•  

62
QA DEAL Data Registry

• Q.13 Do Regulations also apply to site survey
  data? Why not include site surveys as part of
  the 2004 implementation?
• A. Yes, site surveys constitute Licence Data. The
  priority however must be to complete the atlas
  of 2D and 3D surveys so that data products can
  be hung on these hooks. The inclusion of site
  surveys needs more research and this work will be
  included in the scope for 2005 development.
• Q.14 Why are there 2 catalogues of the same data
  - e.g. for a released well there will be the Data
  Release Agents catalogue and the proprietary
  data owners view ?
• A. Neither the catalogues nor their purpose are
  truly the same. It is the Licensees who have the
  obligations to the DTI with respect of retention
  and provision of Licence Data and it is their
  catalogues that the DTI will scrutinize for
  compliance. For reasons explained elsewhere,
  (other than for released seismic data), the
  Licensees catalogues will not be available to
  the public this is the function of the released
  data catalogues.

63
PON 9 Workshop 5. Data Format Exchange
Standards Stewart Robinson, DTI
64
Modern UK Oil Portal Web services Feedback
65
New PON9
66
1
PONs
Standards Format Naming Well Seismic
Pipeline etc Exchange
2
3
Overview
4
5
9
12
Version Control
67
PON data exchange standardsinto and out of
DTIbut importantlywith release agents and NHDA

• Why
• What
• Latest status

68
UK Government mandatory requirements

• Alignment with the internet
• Adoption of XML as primary standard for data
  integration
• Browser as key interface
• Addition of meta data

69
What standards Criteria
Realism

• XML
• In use
• Have an owner

• de facto
• CDA / UKOOA
• POSC
• WITS

70
Data exchange formats - Index
Media 3590
71
Seismic processing data
72
hole / casing / liner details
73
Reference entities

• Codes
• Units of measure
• Align with
• POSC / PIDD / PPDM / API

74
Spatial data

• Stop sending us maps to digitise
• Arc compatible
• Projection systems
• Offshore ED50 or WGS84
• Onshore OSGB36

75
Cataloguing standardDiscovery Dublin Core -
CDA
Well name DTI well name Item
group REPT Item type Well_comp Title Wel
l completion report Date of report Date
delivered to CDA Company name Originator
76
Issues that I have covered

• Cataloguing
• Units of measure
• Reference entities
• Spatial data
• Delivery

77
WITSML
witsml.org
78
Legacy data
DTI recognise that delivery of legacy data sets
may be difficult and are prepared to discuss
these issues on a case by case basis
79
Thats for nowWhere are we going?
Future delivery
80
The UK Oil Portal
81
Other Govt Depts
Oil companies
82
Other Govt Depts
Oil companies
83
DEAL
WellheaderML
Web Sites
EEMS
Other Govt Depts
Oil companies
84
Repository
Other Govt Depts
Oil companies
85
DEAL
Web Sites
EEMS
Repository
PON9
Other Govt Depts
Oil companies
86
DTI receiving documents
Repository
PON9
Oil companies
87
Portal Repository

• XML, pdf (or TIFF)
• Digital signatures (assured source, unchanged)
• Trust rules

88
Oil Gas Document Repository

• Safe upload of documents
• Documents can be signed
• Validation of signed documents
• Currently support signed PDF (Adobe 6) and signed
  XML

89
Repository Demo Upload
90
Repository Demo Postbox
91
Repository Demo Success
92
stewart.robinson_at_dti.gsi.gov.uk og.dti.gsi.gov.uk
cdal.com witsml.org posc.org
93
Questions and Answers
94
QA Data Standards

• Q.01 Do the Data Format Standards relate to
  multiple PONs (its not clear how Stewarts draft
  document relates to PON9)?
• A. The document is intended to apply to all data
  exchanged with the DTI (and its agents). The next
  revision will improve the relationship with PON9
  in particular.
• Q.02 What is the format that is legally
  admissible ?
• A. The legally admissible format is that defined
  from time to time by the DTI. The recommended,
  mandatory format for digital data exchange into
  and out of Government is XML. DTI is moving to
  this through the UK Oil Portal and for some data
  sets are providing a rendering in PDF.
• Q.03 Are there standards for keeping data in
  good condition? What does this mean?
• A. The Model Clauses state that the Licensee
  shall keep in the United Kingdom accurate
  geological plans and maps relating to the
  licensed area and such other records in relation
  thereto as may be necessary to preserve all
  information about the geology of the licensed
  area. Data must be maintained so that it is
  still useable whenever requested by the DTI.
• Q.04 Can the Oil Portal be used to track asset
  disposals where seismic Group Shoots are split
  into 2 or more parts ?
• A. No. DTI is currently rewriting its Licensing
  system, so will investigate if asset ownership
  can be tracked.

95
PON 9 Workshop 6. NHDA Archiving Process Malcolm
Fleming, CDA
96
NHDA Archiving Process

• Outline of Presentation
• Overview
• Why archive?
• Who should archive?
• When should archiving be done?
• What to archive
• How to Archive - the Process
• The Business Case
• Remaining Challenges
• Question Time

97
Why Archive?

• Licensees are jointly and severally obliged to
  retain Licence Data in an accurate and usable
  form in perpetuity
• This obligation survives data release and licence
  relinquishment (and potentially even licence
  equity sale, where obligations may revert in the
  event of default)
• Archiving is the only certain way to escape but
  it makes sense anyway
• Data storage and management cost savings
• Data preservation
• Elimination of duplicated and redundant data
• Data release obligations disappear

98
Who should Archive?

• Licence Groups share the obligations and the
  benefits
• Licence Groups should act through one licensee
• current operator
• or last active operator
• Archiving is currently an optional process
• Adequate take-up will keep it optional

99
When to Archive

• At the time of...
• Block relinquishment (non-contiguous)
• Entire licence relinquishment
• COP ahead of field decommissioning
• Other events

gt600 licences have been fully relinquished to date
100
What to Archive

• Data associated with the Licensed Feature
• Well data (most logs and reports)
• Seismic data (selected surveys) including
  bathymetry
• Potential field data (gravity and magnetics)
• Production data
• Selected interpreted maps and reports
• Reservoir data
• Site surveys
• Digital data only

101
Anomalies Special Cases

• Well cores and samples
• Perpetual obligations do not apply
• DTI Gilmerton has right of first refusal
• BGS wishes to select from the balance
• 2D hardcopy seismic
• Special provisions for CDA members

102
How to Archive - the Process

• Handbook (www.bgs.ac.uk/nhda)
• Version 1 (excludes fields)
• Phase 1 to 4 Evaluate the Option
• 1. Explore option with partners
• 2. Gather information, including baseline costs
• 3. Select and categorise the data
• 4. Estimate the cost and the payback
• Phase 5 Archive and Dispose

103
Five Archiving Phases
Total Cost to Archive Payback (Years)
Baseline Cost
1
Explore Archive Option
2
Information Gathering
Decision to Proceed
3
Data Selection Categorisation
Archiving
4
Compare BaselineCost and Total Cost to Archive
Cost Evaluation
5
Implementation
Phase 1 to 4 Evaluate the option to archive
Disposal
104
Archiving ProcessPhase 1
Explore the Archive Option
OPERATORS TASKS
DETAILS
Start

• 1) Establish a clear identity for the Licensed
  Feature to be archived, specifically
• Geographic boundaries
• List of associated wells
• List of associated seismic surveys (including
  grav./mag. data)
• List of fields
• List of Licence Partners
• History of Licence Partners
• 2) Confirm with the DTI that the nominated
  Licence Feature is eligible for Relief of
  Obligation.
• 3) Contact Licence Partners to obtain their
  consent to proceed to explore the option to
  archive.
• 4) Develop an agreed position with Licence
  Partners with respect to cost sharing.

Select Licensed Feature for archiving.
Identify the wells and surveys that fall within
the Licensed Feature.
Consult with Licence Partners to determine
Licence Group support for moving to Phase 4.
To Phase 2
105
Archiving ProcessPhase 2
Information Gathering
OPERATORS TASKS
DETAILS
From Phase 1
Locate all data associated with the Licensed
Feature
Identify all the sites (internal and external)
where Licence Data (in all its forms) may be
stored
Collect data catalogues with reference to Licence
Data Selection List
Assemble catalogues for all (proprietary) Licence
Data acquired in association with the Licensed
Feature
Determine Annual Baseline Costs to store and
maintain this data.
Estimate the annual cost to store, maintain and
otherwise meet licence obligations for the
Licence Data.
To Phase 3
106
Archiving ProcessPhase 3
Data Selection Categorisation
OPERATORS TASKS
DETAILS
From Phase 2

• Review the Licence Data catalogues with the NHDA
  to agree a selection for the NHDA (with reference
  to the Licence Data Selection List).
• Conduct any data inspection needed.
• Identify and agree any processing or reformatting
  required prior to submission to the NHDA.

Liaise with the NHDA to make Archive Data
Selection.
Identify any Licence Data required by the DTI.
Review the Licence Data catalogues with the NHDA
to agree any data to be selected and shipped to
the DTI in Gilmerton (Edinburgh).
Determine action to be taken with any remaining
Licence Data
Review the remaining Licence Data to determine
whether it is to be retained or disposed of, and
if the latter, its method of disposal.
To Phase 4
107
Archiving ProcessPhase 4
Cost Evaluation
OPERATORS TASKS
DETAILS
From Phase 3

• Obtain cost estimates
• Retrieval
• Scanning and tape transcription
• Packing, packaging and transport
• Destruction
• Project management
• Archive endowment fee

Determine the Total Archiving Cost.
Determine Payback Time and general business case
for archiving
Build the business case for archiving the
Licensed Feature by comparing the Total Archiving
Cost with the Annual Baseline Cost (from Phase 2)
and consider any other arguments for and against.
Consult with Licence Partners
Consult with Licence Partners on the basis agreed
in Phase 1.
Decide whether to proceed with archiving

• Decide whether to
• Abandon the notion of archiving
• Return to Phase 3 to re-work costs
• Proceed to Phase 5

To Phase 5
108
Archiving ProcessPhase 5
Implementation
OPERATORS TASK
DETAILS
From Phase 4
Complete an integrated Project Plan for Phase 5
implementation coordinating the processes for
extracting and providing data from the different
sources to the various destinations (via
intermediate steps as necessary)
Receive DTI Notice that archiving will bring
Relief from Obligation.

• Carefully co-ordinate implementation to ensure
  that the correct actions are applied to the
  correct data at the appropriate time
• Data for DTI Gilmerton
• Initiate after DTI Notice received
• Data for the NHDA
• Initiate after DTI Notice received
• Meet timetable agreed with NHDA
• Data for disposal
• Delay until Relief of Obligation received from
  DTI
• Complete at Licensees own pace

Complete Project Plan
Implement project plan
Feed back learnings to NHDA and DTI
End
109
Archiving ProcessPhase 5 Destinations
Licence Group
110
The Business Case (1)

• Payback (in years) (Phase 1 to 4 Costs)
  (Phase 5 Archiving Costs)
• Annual Baseline Costs
• Costs can be recovered in 3 to 5 years (not
  counting any partners savings)
• Its the responsible thing to do
• Endorsed by PILOT and UKOOA
• The only certain way to remove the perpetual
  retention obligation in the licence
• DTI wants the process to be adopted voluntarily,
  but...

111
The Business Case (2)

• 2003 Archiving Project
• Very little incremental cost to get to Phase 4
• Payback Time is 2.7 to 4.6 years (for unilateral
  action)
• Accelerated Payback from acting as Licence Groups
• Activity
• BG and KMG are currently archiving
• BP, ChevronTexaco, Shell and Total likely to
  start in Q2/2004
• New facilitated project for 2004

Total Archiving Cost
Baseline
Unilateral Action
Joint Action
112
Remaining Challenges
2004/05

• Associating data with licences
• Tracking all licensees with obligations
• Proprietary rights and title
• Well and survey naming
• Cataloguing standards and quality
• Knowledge of the data
• Archiving data for Fields
• Exploration licenses
• Group Shoots

• Who acquired the data?
• Under which licence?
• Who has the data obligation?
• Who would get relief?
• Who has the data?

113
In Summary

• An optional process, pre-empting a possible
  regulatory obligation
• The only certain way to escape from perpetual
  obligations (and therefore perpetual costs)
• Licence groups must act together to share the
  costs and rewards
• Theres a strong business case to archive
• Its a responsible thing to do anyway
• Companies have started to archive data

114
For more information...

• Russell Hornzee russell.hornzee_at_dti.gsi.gov.uk
• Malcolm Fleming mfleming_at_cdal.com
• Archiving Handbook www.bgs.ac.uk/NHDA

115
Questions and Answers
116
QA NHDA

• Q.01 If Operators submit hardcopy 2D seismic to
  the DTI in Gilmerton will they be relieved of
  their obligation for this data?
• A. The DTI has stopped collecting seismic data
  and the only way relief of obligation can be
  obtained for 2D seismic is through the archiving
  process. The DTI intends to look more closely at
  a process where by licensees could apply for
  seismic data to be agreed as being redundant,
  separate from the archiving process, but this is
  not currently in place.
• Q.02 The DTI expresses strong support for the
  NHDA but its use is not mandatory why not?
• A. The case for the NHDA is self-evident and has
  support from UKOOA and PILOT. The DTIs current
  position is that compulsion is unwarranted.
• Q.03 Is relief from storage obligations given to
  all Licensees ?
• A. Yes. All licensees for a licence receive
  relief from the DTI and the NHDA adopts
  responsibility for the data.
• Q.04 Have the costs of retrieving data from the
  current data storage locations been included in
  the estimates resulting in the quoted payback
  periods?
• A. Yes. Retrieval costs have been included in the
  business case.

117
QA NHDA

• Q.05 Where does the NHDA funding come from?
• A. The archiving company (normally the Operator)
  will be responsible for (a) providing an
  application fee, for BGS to undertake data
  selection and calculate endowment costs, and (b)
  providing a one off endowment at the time of
  archiving, to cover the cost of placing the data
  in the NHDA. These costs are covered by charges
  made by the NHDA to the archiving company and its
  partners.
• The BGS parent body,the National Environmental
  Research Council (NERC) has defined 7 data
  centres to hold environmental, geoscientific and
  other strategic datasets on behalf of the nation.
  One of those defined is the National Geosciences
  Data Centre (NGDC). Data acquired by the NHDA
  will be maintained in perpetuity as part of the
  NGDC. The NGDC is funded directly by the
  Government Science budget
• Q.06 Is there a feedback loop to the Data
  Registry to show data that has been archived ?
• A . Yes. The Data Owner on DEAL will be amended
  and shown as the NHDA.
• Q.07 How is data retrieved from the NHDA?
• A. Users will identify the required data on the
  DEAL catalogue and place an order to the NHDA.

118
QA NHDA

• Q.08 Does the panel appreciate that data quality
  is not just copying to modern format, 90 of
  surveys need remedial work? It is imperative
  that this QC work is done if originals are to be
  destroyed.
• A. Yes. The panel recognises the importance of
  seismic QC.
• Q.09 What system is used in NHDA?
• A. The NHDA is not based on any commercial
  system. The data model reflects the categories of
  data as defined in the Archive Licence Dataset
  listed in the Archive Handbook. Items are
  structured in a file system whose attributes are
  stored in the database and metadata is created
  which maps to the categories of data
  received. The system is implemented in the BGS
  ORACLE database and is directly accessible via
  the web using Cold Fusion scripting. It is
  intended to use DEAL to link directly to the
  appropriate URL string defined for data
  categories and metadata so that users can select
  archived features and find out directly the
  datasets available from the NHDA
  database. Digital well logs will be stored in the
  RECALL system and logs will be dynamically linked
  via appropriate attribute content.
• Q.10 Is there a minimum set of data to be
  supplied to NHDA?
• A. The published Licence Data Selection List
  provides guidance, but the final set is agreed on
  a case by case basis by the NHDA and the
  Licence Operator.

119
QA NHDA

• Q.11 Why does selling Licence interest not always
  relieve a company of its data obligation?
• A. The situation is theoretical and unlikely, but
  the Deed of Assignment by which such
  transactions are done includes a provision
  whereby liability reverts to the seller in the
  event of default. This provision is intended to
  cover eventualities such as decommissioning costs
  but in theory applies equally in the event of
  default on obligations with respect to Licence
  Data.
• Q.12 What happens if an interpretation is
  deposited to the NHDA and someone subsequently
  uses it and it proves to be false?
• A. Data provided by the NHDA will carry an
  indemnity. The same indemnity should be made
  between the Operator and the NHDA at the time of
  archive.
• Q.13 If added value datasets are archived (e.g.
  AVO cubes, seismic gathers) can the NHDA
  guarantee that the former data owners will be
  able to retrieve these 10 years on ?
• A. The NHDA does not intend to provide a storage
  alternative for companies in this way. The
  Archive Licence Dataset as presently defined
  would be retained in perpetuity, but the
  NHDA does not have any obligation to retain data
  that falls outwith the scope of this dataset.

120
QA NHDA

• Q.14 What is the key lesson learnt by BG in the
  Archive Project ?
• A. The most valuable lesson was the importance of
  keeping Licence Data in a good state then the
  whole archive process goes a lot more smoothly.
• Q.15 The payback periods look optimistic - is
  re-mastering (e.g. from 9-track) included?
• A. Yes. The payback costs for the archive project
  Licences include re-mastering costs.
• Q.16 What would happen if a company decided not
  to archive due to costs ?
• A. There would be some further discussion and
  negotiation around the selection made by the
  NHDA. If these fail then the Licensees would
  simply continue to meets their obligations by
  retaining all Licence Data in perpetuity and
  satisfying any DTI requests for the data.
• Q.17 Why is it so difficult to relate the
  ownership of seismic surveys to licences?
• A. A seismic survey over a specific geographical
  area could have been acquired by several means
  (for example under a Production Licence, as spec.
  data under an Exploration Licence, as open
  access proprietary data under an Exploration
  Licence, as part of a group shoot, as courtesy
  data or as a seismic trade). The DTI now has a
  database that links surveys to Licences now that
  PON14a close-out notices are required however,
  more detective work is needed for legacy data
  acquired since the PON9 Annual Return forms
  were neither routinely submitted by all Licensees
  nor policed by the DTI.

121
QA NHDA

• Q.18 Do you have a schedule or an upper limit for
  the number of licensed features that you plan to
  archive in 2005 and beyond?  Or are you gong to
  resource and deal with the volume as and when it
  happens?
• A. The BGS business model for the NHDA is based
  on archiving data from at least 4 fields and 16
  licences in each calendar year for the next 5
  years. DTI will use best endeavours at all times
  to convince sufficient Licensees to submit data
  to the archive to at least meet the level of
  activity required by the business model.

122
PON 9 Workshop 7. Panel Session
123
The Panel Any Questions?

• PON9 Overview Jackie Banner, DTI
• DEAL Data Registry Peter McCartney, CDA
• Data Standards Stewart Robinson, DTI
• NHDA Malcolm Fleming, CDA
• John McInnes, BGS
• Peter Kennedy, BP (Aberdeen)
• Jenni McDonnell, BG (London)

124
PON 9 Workshop 8. Summary Next Steps Russell
Hornzee, DTI Malcolm Fleming, CDA
125
Summary Next Steps

• Revise and reissue
• PON9
• Data Standards
• Other?
• Slides available
• Latest May 21st from DTI, DEAL and CDA sites
• Feedback
• Other Actions?

126
Thank you...

• Contact details
• Jackie Banner jackie.banner_at_dti.gsi.gov.uk
• Russell Hornzee russell.hornzee_at_dti.gsi.gov.uk
• Stewart Robinson stewart.robinson_at_dti.gsi.gov.uk
• Peter McCartney pmccartney_at_cdal.com
• Malcolm Fleming mfleming_at_cdal.com
• John McInnes jlmc_at_bgs.ac.uk

127
PON 9 Workshop 9. Attendees
128
Attendance List