Geodetic Integrity The Essential for Data Managers and Users March 13, 2013, Houston

Experts in Geomatics, Surveying, Positioning, Geospatial Data, and Mapping Sciences Geodetic Integrity The Essential for Data Managers and Users March 13, 2013, Houston Michael Barnes APSG Foundation Chair 2010-2015 APSG Chair 2008-2009 1

Data Tools Zone of the Geospatial Data Management Quagmire Knowledge Techniques Source: Cain & Barnes LP 2

Contents Geodesy Class Fundamental Exploration Datasets (seismic, wells, boundaries) 3 geospatial data innovations you need to consider (satellite imagery, 3D printing, OGP area polygons) New Industry Standard: Geospatial Integrity of Geoscience Software (GIGS) Training Results Geodetic data handling 3

The 5 geodetic facts you need to know in Geospatial Data Management 1. Geodetic Datum 2. Map Projection 3. Vertical Reference 4. Reference Orientation 5. Unit of Measurement 4

Geodesy explained in 2 ½ minutes NASA created a cartoon called Looking Down a Well: A Brief History of Geodesy Geodesy is a field of study that deals with the measurement and representation of the Earth, and it all started when a clever human named Eratosthenes discovered that you could measure the circumference of the Earth by looking down a well. Over time, the field of geodesy has expanded and evolved dramatically, and NASA uses technology like radio telescopes, ground surveys, and satellites to contribute! Learn more about geodesy in this video! http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a010900/a010910/ 5

Geodetic Reference Surfaces h H N Normal to Ellipsoid Normal to Geoid N=h-H Ellipsoid Geoid Terrain b a Geoid Equipotential surface which approximates to MSL Ellipsoid Surface where Computations are made 1/f = a/(a-b) Source: APSG 6

Examples of Geodetic Horizontal Datums 7

How many geodetic datums? Review www.epsg-registry.org 8

Before GPS we had 130 years of geodetic surveying e.g. National Geodetic Survey of Nepal 1981-1984 9

Geodetic Survey Network Diagram 10

Creating geodetic datums was challenging work Source: Mick Paskin Nepal 1982-1985 11

One of 450 Geodetic Datums used Worldwide 12

Hierarchy of Geospatial Data and Mapping Ellipsoid λp Equator Yp Φp hp P Zp Xp Projected CRS is a derivative of the Datum (Geog CRS) Easting, Northing, Elevation (above MSL) stable Unstable w/o Datum Datum (ellipsoid & origin) is the Foundation X,Y,Z Cartesian and Lat, Long, Ht Source: APSG 13

What are the main map projections in use? Mercator Transverse Mercator Universal Transverse Mercator Lambert Conformal Conic Others less frequently: Stereographic, Oblique Stereographic, Oblique Mercator, et. al. 14

Height, elevation, vertical datum or what? Local Kelly-Bushing, ground level, sea level, and assorted other local references Geodetic Either directly or derived from Mean Sea Level at one or more points at some epoch examples: NGVD 29, NAVD 88, IGLD85, OSU91A, EGM96 Tidal Defined by direct observation of tidal variations over some period of time at a specific location (or locations) examples: MSL, LAT, MLLW, MLW, MHW, MHHW 15

Potential for confusion with Local Vertical Datum Source: UKOAA, now OGP 16

Reference orientations (5 kinds of north) True North = Direction of the meridian through a point Magnetic North = Differs from True North by declination and varies with time Grid North = Differs from True North by convergence Gyro North = a measurement of True North by instrument Plant North = strictly a local non-georeferenced orientation 18

Data handling of reference north From various well documents and databases Casing MWD: Magnetic (referenced to Magnetic North) Below Casing: Inertial (referenced to True or Gyro North) Rig orientation: (referenced to Grid N or True N?) When data are merged: Was the magnetic data adjusted to grid or true N? Has the rig orientation used the same North reference? Is all this documented for other departments / users? Do specifications lead to consistent results? Was there QC of the onsite methods and data? Is there a clear and informative report? What is the default north in your application? 19

Units of Measurement (13 kinds of feet and 2 kinds of meters in use) Reference Units: Biggest E&P Problem US Survey Foot vs. International Foot 1 ftus = 1.000002 ft (Intl), but this is still important for UTM, generating 30-60 foot errors, depending on latitude Other Feet: Clarke s Foot, Sears 1922, 2 for Benoit (both 1895), Gold Coast Ft., 4 Indian Ft. (1865, 1937, 1962 & 1975) and 2 British Feet (1865 & 1935), 2 meters: International Meter and German Legal Meter Other linear units include Chains, Links, and Yards 20

If you remember nothing else.. Latitudes and Longitudes are not unique unless qualified with datum name Projection Coordinates are not unique unless qualified with Projection name, Zone and Datum Heights are not unique unless qualified with Surface Reference (Vertical Datum) Orientations are not unique unless qualified with Heading Reference Units are not unique unless qualified with Unit Reference 21

Data Acquisition & Sourcing Processing & Integration Integrity & Handling Data basing & Retrieval Tools Project Work Knowledge Techniques 22

Fundamental Exploration Data Sets Seismic Surveys Wells, surface and well bore locations Boundaries, lease and license areas 23

Source: OGP 24

Source: OGP 25

80% + of all GG&E data Easting and Northing, X and Y or Y and X? Units of Measure stated? e.g. US Survey Foot International Foot Meter, etc Mandatory Metadata 26

NAD83 Seismic Survey incorrectly mapped as NAD27 400 feet of error as a block shift 27

Commercial Well Location Data Source: APSG 28

Digital Land Grids (Cadastral) Source: APSG 29

Area Discrepancy due to Incorrect Grid 30

Example Unit with Discrepancies Measured 31

Various State & Vendor Database Well Locations 32

Source: Conner 33

Source: Conner 34

Well Surface Locations are frequently wrong Source: EnSoCo 35

Reasons for Mislocation of Wells Accuracy and reliability of original measurement systems and cartographic layers Miscalculations and poor QC Error in transformation of Coordinate Reference Systems Transcription errors, data entered incorrectly Transposing legacy data via new technologies Inadequate documentation Lack of industry standards for surveying and mapping 36

Corporate Geospatial Data Managed at global or business unit level Company Propriety data Lease boundaries and licensed areas Seismic Well data Topographic and bathymetry Site survey and environmental data Infrastructure (pipelines, platforms, cables..) Geodetic Parameters Third party industry data Seismic multiclient and speculative Well database Geologic data High resolution aerial and satellite imagery Gravity and magnetics Geodetic Parameters 38

Geodetic Integrity of Geospatial Data Past, Present and Future Source: OGP GIGS 39

Innovations in data use still requires sound geodetic and mapping principles 40

Time Lapse Plant refurbishment Iraq 7 months of overlay data 41

Wyoming Geo-Information Integration 2010 DEM 2006 photography 1964 Surficial Geology 1968 topo 2012 topo 2012 aerial 43

Wyoming 2D Data Geodetic Parameters Options NAD27 NAD83 WGS84 NAD27 / BLM 12N (ftus) NAD27 / BLM 13N (ftus) NAD27 / UTM zone 12N NAD27 / UTM zone 13N NAD27 / Wyoming West NAD83 / BLM 12N (ftus) NAD83 / BLM 13N (ftus) NAD83 / UTM zone 12N NAD83 / UTM zone 13N NAD83 / Wyoming West NAD83 / Wyoming West (ftus) NAD83(HARN) / UTM zone 12N NAD83(HARN) / UTM zone 13N NAD83(HARN) / Wyoming West NAD83(HARN) / Wyoming West (ftus) NAD83(NSRS2007) / UTM zone 12N NAD83(NSRS2007) / UTM zone 13N NAD83(NSRS2007) / Wyoming West NAD83(NSRS2007) / Wyoming West (ftus) SPCS83 Wyoming West zone (meters) SPCS83 Wyoming West zone (US Survey feet) 44

CRS Metadata inadequate? What is mislocation risk? NAD27 NAD83 WGS84 NAD27 / BLM 12N (ftus) NAD27 / BLM 13N (ftus) NAD27 / UTM zone 12N NAD27 / UTM zone 13N NAD27 / Wyoming West NAD83 / BLM 12N (ftus) NAD83 / BLM 13N (ftus) NAD83 / UTM zone 12N NAD83 / UTM zone 13N NAD83 / Wyoming West NAD83 / Wyoming West (ftus) NAD83(HARN) / UTM zone 12N NAD83(HARN) / UTM zone 13N NAD83(HARN) / Wyoming West NAD83(HARN) / Wyoming West (ftus) NAD83(NSRS2007) / UTM zone 12N NAD83(NSRS2007) / UTM zone 13N NAD83(NSRS2007) / Wyoming West NAD83(NSRS2007) / Wyoming West (ftus) SPCS83 Wyoming West zone (meters) SPCS83 Wyoming West zone (US Survey feet) 45

3D printing direct from GIS data 46

OGP ESPG Area Polygons reducing risk in handling of geodetic data 2,900+ polygons available online Source: OGP www.epsg-registry.org 47

Polygon Example: Nigeria Onshore and EEZ Rectangular Bounding Box 11 geodetic datums 13 Projected CRS* 25 transformations Geographic Area Polygon 3 geodetic datums 9 Projected CRS* 13 transformations * = datum + map projection 48

Source: Schostak 50

WWW.OGP.CO.UK for GIGS industry standards documentation 52

ExxonMobil Class Features Geodesy and Cartography in the Upstream One day awareness, instructors lead training 5 modules covering: Overview Geodetic Datums, Coordinate Reference Systems and Transformations Map Projections Vertical Coordinate Reference Systems Wrap up and References

867 Class Participants 2007-12

Class Geography 2007-12

Demographics of Participants 2007-12

Relevant and Useful?

Data Acquisition & Sourcing Processing & Integration Integrity & Handling Data basing & Retrieval Tools GNSS (GPS) Positioning GIS Mapping Geoscience Software Engineering Software Knowledge Basic Geography College, University Industry Training Learning & Development Zone of the Geospatial Quagmire Techniques Standards & Practices Procedures & Workflows Quality Control Processes Continuous Improvement Source: Cain & Barnes LP 62

Forensic Geodetics of Well Location (US GOM) Followed the data from G&G through Drilling Operations 486 documents with well location stated Location stated as X and Y Often stated as UTM 16N ftus (aka BLM) NAD 27 and NAD 83 both are relevant 40% had no datum stated Geoscience data handling in UTM 15 and 16 at various stages of process Positioning difference is. Cost of the well is 63

NAD27 / UTM 15N vs. NAD83 / UTM 15N Positioning difference is 656 feet Cost of Well US$ 85 million 64

Some geodetic challenges in the US Petroleum Industry Staying sane with 2 working datums (NAD27 and NAD83 are both relevant) Dependency on legal documents as delineation authorities Inconsistent landgrid base map Planned and measured wellbores 65

Last words. Coordinate Quality Coordinate Precision Coordinate Transformations 66

Coordinate Quality the ignored attribute Almost never Compared to what Zero industry standard Source plus transactions 67

Geodetic Quality of Positioning Data by Grammar Original Datum Known Source Vintage Known Unknown (Assumed) Proprietary Operated by Other (OBO) Licensed Government or Commercial > 2000 1990s 1980s 1970s < 1970 Location Quality Possibilities Excellent Good Fair Poor Field Documentation Complete Documentation Partial Documentation No Documentation Format Digital Media (Tape, CD, etc.) Transcribed (Keypunched, etc.) Digitized from map Offshore Positioning GPS or GPS/INS Short Range Radio Navigation Long Range Radio Navigation Transit / Doppler Unknown Onshore Positioning GPS or GPS/INS Surveying from Geodetic Control Surveying from Map or Cadaster Unknown 68

Geodetic Quality of Positioning Data by Positional Accuracy (TX RRC) 69

Geodetic Quality of Positioning Data by Statistical Measure 70

Coordinate Precision of Presentation 71

Transforming Coordinate Reference Systems Concatenated data operations are not trivial Source: OGP EPSG Registry 73

Geospatial Data Management Functions, Activities, & Relationships are not trivial Satellite Aerial Map Data Property Lease DB Review Acquisition & Processing Data Loading & Interpretation Ownership/PSC Requirements Data from Industry DB Interpretation System SW Review Middleware Drilling Facilities & Pipelines Reservoir Management Production Existing Well/Seismic Data Acquisition Field QC Review Velocity Picking/ Mapping Application Management Drilling Review Pre Lease Sale Eval n Lease Contract Boundary Geological Prospecting 2D, 3D Seismic Acquisition Seismic Processing Data Loading Interpretation Proposed Well Location Drilling Directional Drilling Pipelines and Facilities Installation Production 2D, 3D Seismic Data Purchase In-house Review P1/90 Bin Center Data Loading Sheets Review Exploitation & Volumetrics WS Admin Site Survey Production Planning Geophysical Planning Reservoir Analysis & Management 4D Seismic Acquisition & Processing Functional Activities Sub-Functional Activities Vendor Application & Data Management Spatial Review Development Planning Source: Jon Stigant GIS/Mapping Management Requirement Reformatting, Re-referencing and Re-presenting Spatial Data

Data Tools Zone of the Geospatial Data Management Quagmire Knowledge Techniques 75

Further information or clarification? Houston based, 440+ experts in geomatics, surveying, positioning, geospatial data and mapping sciences www.apsg.info michael.barnes@cain-barnes.com 76