1 / 24

Options to consider for future marine seismic data acquisition

Options to consider for future marine seismic data acquisition. Prepared for 3/14/ 19 webinar discussion Alexander Shor. Background. 2004 – NSF awarded cooperative agreement to LDEO to acquire and outfit R/V Langseth , replacing R/V Ewing , retired the following year

mloren
Download Presentation

Options to consider for future marine seismic data acquisition

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Options to consider for future marine seismic data acquisition Prepared for 3/14/19 webinar discussion Alexander Shor

  2. Background • 2004 – NSF awarded cooperative agreement to LDEO to acquire and outfit R/V Langseth, replacing R/V Ewing, retired the following year • 2008 – Langsethbegan normal operations • First multi-streamer seismic acquisition system in Academic Research Fleet • Large, well tuned source provided excellent quality data. • Used to support 3-D and long-offset 2-D projects, as well as refraction work with OBS’s

  3. Background • Funding from Marine Geology and Geophysics and Ocean Drilling Programs in Division of Ocean Sciences, Continental Dynamics in Division of Earth Sciences (and foreign partners) and Extended Continental Shelf program at USGS • Schedules began to decline after 2012 in wake of major Federal budget cuts (following burst of “extra” funds from ARRA)

  4. Sea Change Report • National Academy report “Sea Change” recommended rebalancing budget of Division of Ocean Sciences to reduce portion going to support infrastructure • Ocean Observing Initiative, International Ocean Discovery Program and Academic Research Fleet recommended for immediate cuts and follow-on reductions

  5. Sea Change Report • Report noted that R/V Langsethwas underutilized, rarely used for general-purpose work, and cost significantly more than other global class vessels to operate • NSF response to Sea Change Report stated that Langsethcost of $14 million annually was ‘unsustainable’ • NSF committed to seeking more affordable methods to support marine seismology of the type being conducted on Langseth

  6. 2015 Workshop • NSF sponsored workshop in 2015 to: • 1) Address whether long-streamer multichannel work could be carried out on AGOR-23 Class ships like Revelle, and • 2) whether industry seismic data acquisition was an available and affordable option. • Recommendation was that neither option would meet needs for NSF-funded research.

  7. Program Solicitation 17-563 • NSF sought proposals in 2017 to a) replace Langsethorb) operate Langsethin a mode costing NSF no more than $10 million annually • Three options allowed, including “new technologies”, change of Langsethownership, or a 5-year program of continued NSF ownership, but at reduced annual operating budget, and with no service life extension • All proposals submitted were declined

  8. Program Solicitation 17-563 • “If no acceptable proposals are received, NSF will divest from R/V Marcus G. Langsethand will work with academic, international, and/or commercial partners for ad hoc access to third-party seismic capabilities within budgetary and logistical constraints and responsive to science proposals.”

  9. Dear Colleague Letter NSF 18-061 • Current commitments for field programs using Langseth will be honored, but the ship is expected to complete field operations “no later than mid-2020, at which time NSF will implement the activities for divestment of R/V Langseth.” • Responses from UNOLS MSROC, as well as early-career scientist and graduate students, decried the decision as damaging to the field, and particularly to young scientist entering the field.

  10. UNOLS MSROC white paper • Recommends for replacement to Langseth: • An operating model that will maintain a state-of-the-art capability with the $10 million annual contribution offered by NSF; • A high quality tuned seismic source array, comparable to the 6600-in3 source currently in use on Langseth that is widely viewed as best in class, and suitable for use in both MCS reflection and OBS refraction projects; • A long seismic streamer capability, of at least 12 km and preferably 15 km length, to optimize velocity data on large-offset 2-D projects; • A state-of-the-art navigation and data acquisition system to allow full documentation of all source and receiver positions in three dimensions; and • An ability to carry out 3-D surveys about every two years, on average.

  11. Options to consider for post-2020 operations • Option 1: Acquisitionby an academic institution or Consortium and conversion of a usedglobal-class-size vessel for operation as a general-purpose vessel in the ARF by a UNOLS operator. • Needs compressors and over-boarding capability to allow active-source seismic operations and deployment of 12+ km streamers for 2D and two or more 4-6 km streamers for 3D data acquisition. • Supported by a technical support group at the operating institution. • Costs would be primarily for basic research support, mainly from NSF • Would be able to support a variety of oceanographic programs, with seismic operations just one component of the annual program. • Requires coordination with UNOLS FIC to address science mission requirements – process is just recently underway for global vessels.

  12. Options to consider for post-2020 operations • Option 1A: Purchase of R/V Langsethby an academic institution willing to operate and maintain it as a general purpose research vessel in the ARF. • If to be used to support NSF-funded non-seismic work, would need to be properly outfitted and staffed by qualified technicians. • Funds associated with operationabove $10 million available to support seismic operations would need to be identified and obtained by the operator without help from NSF. • This could be a transitional option if acquisition of a new ship is planned, or a longer-term plan, if appropriate funds are identified to maintain, upgrade and operate full time.

  13. Options to consider for post-2020 operations • Option 2: Acquisition by an academic institution or Consortium and conversion of a used ocean-class- or global-class-size vessel for operation as a dedicated seismic vessel in the ARF by a UNOLS operator. • Needs compressors and over-boarding capability to allow active-source seismic operations and deployment of 12+ km streamers for 2D and four or more 4-6 km streamers for 3D data acquisition. • Supported by a technical support group at the operating institution. • Costs would be half to two thirds for basic research support, with remainder from charters by industry

  14. Options to consider for post-2020 operations • Option 2A: Purchase of R/V Langsethby an academic institution willing to operate it as a seismic research vessel in the ARF, and to contract remaining time for non-ARF operations (e.g. commercial seismic surveys). • Costs associated with operation above $10 million available from NSF to support seismic operations would need to be identified and obtained by the operator. • This could be a transitional option if acquisition of a new ship is planned, or a longer-term plan, if appropriate funds are identified to maintain, upgrade and operate full time.

  15. Options to consider for post-2020 operations • Option 3: Lease of a vessel on a multi-year basis, with conversion to meet the unique requirements of academic researchers, and outfitting to allow large science parties with graduate students to participate fully in at-sea operations. • Is there likely to be an operator prepared to provide a ship on terms like this, similar to JOIDES Resolution or Palmer? • Cost of the lease would need to be included as part of the day rate of the vessel, thus part of the $10 million from NSF would be used to pay lease cost • Good cost information needed to determine if this is viable.

  16. Options to consider for post-2020 operations • Option 3a: Leaseof vessels on an as-needed basis, using standard industry contracting process from a small group of pre-qualified operators. Will require an office at an academic institution (“OCE model”) or contractor (“OPP model”) to conduct chartering and manage logistics on behalf of NSF-funded researchers. • Likely to require some institutional management of specialized scientific equipment (magnetometer, gravimeter, etc) and high resolution bathymetry unlikely? • Need to engage with operators to allow large science parties with graduate students to a) participate fully in at-sea operations, or b) set up a site on land to process data in parallel with data acquisition (“dry land sailing”).

  17. Refining Options: Ship Type and Seismic Outfitting • Specialized or general-purpose? • Size and specs – current SMR document for a global class vessel with seismic capability FIC? • Capacity – how many bunks and labs? • Is multi-streamer 3-D a firm requirement? • Are two streamers enough for 3D work?

  18. Refining Options: Acquisition and Ownership • NSF will not contribute funds to acquisition. • Source of funds to acquire ship, will it be a lease or purchase? • Are there suitable ships available? • Cost to modify to meet user requirements? • Will NSF offer funds to replace or upgrade seismic equipment outside of the operating funds?

  19. Refining Options: Cost of Operation • Limited to $10 million annual from NSF ($50M/5 yr) to support multichannel seismology (ship plus technician costs, including environmental compliance). • NSF will pay lease costs, but only if included in the $10 million available annually (expected to provide 75-150 op days).

  20. Refining Options: Role for Industry • Is a company willing to offer a ship for special purpose conversion under multi-year lease, as the JOIDES Resolution or Nathaniel B. Palmer? • Is a role for offshore seismic industry to participate as either operator (leased vessel with or without equipment) or partner (passive funding source for basic research)? • Is there a way for the NSF-funded academic community to work in a more standard industry data acquisition mode?

  21. Refining Options: Role of Consortium • Formation of Consortium demonstrates broad interest and helps justify the cost. • Provides non-NSF funds to support education and/or some specific research objectives. • Are institutions prepared to make a financial commitment to Consortium operations? • Is the commitment of funds by Consortium members somehow exempted from consideration as cost-sharing?

  22. Refining Options: Regional Planning • Consider seismic proposals on regional basis is probably still cost-effective & advisable. • If there is a true general purpose capability, scheduling could be more like a ‘normal’ global-class ARF vessel.

  23. Refining Options: Timing and Transition Planning • What is realistic timetable for acquisition, outfitting and sea trials for replacement ship? • Will PI’s be given guidance about how to submit work plans for proposals that need long-offset 2-D and 3-D projects in the 2020-2023 time frame? • If a new ship will not begin operations soon after Langsethends operations in 2020, is there a possibility to extend Langsethoperations? If so, would that require Option 1A or 2A from above?

  24. Thank you • For further information: • Alexander Shor, University of Hawai’i • Email: shor@soest.hawaii.edu • Phone: Cell 703-568-7467

More Related