Improving Location Accuracy

1. ImprovingLocation Accuracy 101100110101 Update on migrating to NAD 83 and to a newer survey grid version Yogi Schulz

2. Yogi SchulzBiography Management Consultants • President of Corvelle Management Consultants • Information technology related management consulting • Project management and systems development • Computing Canada & Calgary Herald columnist • PPDM Association board member • Industry presenter: • Project World - 4 years • CIPS Informatics - 7 years • PMI Information Systems SIG - 2 years • Convergence - 4 years • PPDM Association - several years

3. PresentationOutline • Quick introduction to: • surveying, datums andco-ordinate reference systems • DLS survey grid • Background to the problem/opportunity • Strategies for improving location accuracy • Benefits & Risks • Conclusions & Recommendations • Questions & Discussion Bernie needs constant reassurance

4. A Quick Overviewof Survey Datum History NAD 27 WGS 84 Best fit for North America Best fit for the whole world Implemented as NAD 83 Canadian Federal Government Completed NAD 83 implementation in 1996

5. NAD 27 to NAD 83 Differences

6. NAD 27 to NAD 83 Difference Impact UTM Easting/Northing shift 227.98 meters Lat/Long shift 72.49 meters Calgary Tower moveson a map if location datais not migrated

7. Edmonton Calgary 10 - 40 m ATS 4.1 DLS Survey Grid Differences • Why is this important? • 99% of GPS surveys are based on ASCM • ASCM = ATS 4.1 ATS 2.2 vs. 4.1 7

8. DLS Grid Version Difference Impact vs ATS 2.2 Difference > 40 m DLS Grid ATS 4.1

9. +200 m -75 m 30 m Wells Pipelines Seismic Land Culture Grid Impact of Geospatial Data Discrepancies 1 Bin Grid 20-30 m Location risk increasesas exploration targets become smaller

10. Project Drivers • Minimize risk of producing maps with multiple datums & survey grid versions unknowingly • Respond to new data submission and distribution requirements of regulatory agencies • Implement CAPP recommendation to: • Recognize that all new survey data is being acquired and delivered using NAD 83 • Opportunity to improve the G&G data management environment Growing momentum for oil & gas industry to move forward

11. Current combination: NAD 27 ATS 2.2 or ATS 2.6 STS 1.0 or STS 2.5 MAN 1.0 PRB 1.0 New combination: NAD 83 ATS 4.1 STS 2.5 MAN 1.0 PRB 1.0 Migrating to a new datum& to a new survey grid version PPDM modules &some software packages support move to new combination

12. Strategies for Migrating to NAD 83 and a new DLS survey grid version • Do nothing • Use either current or new combinationon a product-by-product basis • Use either current or new combinationon a project-by-project basis • Continue to use current combination throughout the company • One-time data migration of current to new combination throughout the company Lowest risk approach requires useof a single combination company-wide

13. One-time data migration Scope Choices • Upgrade DLS version • Corporate PPDM databases • SEG P1 database(s) • All active project datastores • Project datastores with anticipated longevity • Inactive projects • Legacy data: • Reels of seismic SEG Y data • Printed & Mylar maps Increasing Cost Complexity Schedule Benefit

14. Project Benefits Risk Reduction • Ongoing confirmation of the actual datum & survey grid version creates risk of error • The errors can lead to: • Misplaced wells that miss their reservoir targets • Missed exploration opportunities through misinterpretation

15. Project Benefits Effort Reduction • The project benefits include reduced: • Confusion about datums • Confusion about survey grid versions • Data management effort • Data conversion effort Value of the benefitsrelative to costof data migration projectis subject to challenge Green grid is NAD 27 Gray grid is NAD 83

16. ProjectRisks • Data quality inadequacies willcomplexify the data migration • Expectation that data migrationwill fix bumps in the G & G workflow • Under-estimating impact of data migration on: • Computing environment: Applications, Data • End-user training • Data not available in new combination from data vendors • Applications from software vendors not ready to support new combination

17. Conclusions • Migration projects respond to trendof widening use of new combinationin the oil & gas industry • Migration projects position companies for survey requirements of unconventional production projects • Every company will have to address the data migration sooner or later Data migration projects pay for themselves with one dry hole

18. Recommendations • Build datum & survey grid awarenessthrough education • Use PPDM to manage the data migrationto the new combination • Participate in the NAD 83 best practices workgroup Collaboration will: - Improve quality of deliverables - Reduce costs through sharing

19. Questions &Discussion Can you help explorationists? Please fill out evaluation form

20. Improving Location Accuracy 1800, 250 - 6th Ave. S.W. Calgary, Alberta Canada T2P 3H7 Telephone: (403) 249-5255 E-mail: YogiSchulz@corvelle.com Web: www.corvelle.com Management Consultants Information technology related management consulting Project management and systems development Computing Canada & Calgary Herald columnist PPDM Association board member

21. NAD 27 to NAD 83 Differences 60 – 90 meters 0 – 25 meters

22. Likely Software Listrequired by all energy companies • PPDM datastore migration * • Project datastore migration for: • GeoFrame • Petrel • OFM • Sequential file data migration • SEG P1 * & SEG Y data migration • GIS SDE layer migration * May be handled by data management vendor