1. T.T. Kuipers Reports of Working groups DINO user council

2. Delft, november 25, 2004 Footer2 Overview Seismic data Production data National Data Repository meeting Digital reports

3. Delft, november 25, 2004 Footer3 Seismic data 1 st Workgroup meeting 12-11-2007 7 organizations (ATP, EBN, GdF, NAM, Petro Canada, Total, Wintershall)

4. Delft, november 25, 2004 Footer4 Issues 1/2 1.The need to know exactly what seismic (and other geophysical-) surveys are shot Yearly written inquiry by SodM 2.Mining regulations unclear TNO will formulate a text indicating which data and how these should be send to TNO (including situations where companies leave the Netherlands) 3.2D surveys > 1982 TNO will try to obtain SEGY data where possible from the operators when asked for 2D seismic data younger than 1982

5. Delft, november 25, 2004 Footer5 Issues 2/2 4.Raw field data (Post stack) participants support the value of these data. TNO will formulate a text (see 2) and make a proposal for the MEA 5.Release of data Release after 5 years since the end of a survey is considered to be too soon 6.Non Mining Law surveys (reprocessed, merged) TNO evaluates the possibilities to record the existence of these surveys in NLOG and refer to the ‘owner’ with conditions how one can get hold of the data

6. Delft, november 25, 2004 Footer6 Production data Workgroup (all producing operators + SodM + EBN) met several times. Last meeting February 2006, new meeting to be scheduled soon Latest production figures 2007 have been approved New XML templates will be distributed short after meeting including options for CO 2 Storage N 2 Storage (salt industry)

7. Delft, november 25, 2004 Footer7 National Data Repository 8 th meeting in Cape Town 19-21 February 150 delegates of 50 countries Most NDR’s associated with National Government Different business models and different release policies; Netherlands unique in presenting data for free Netherlands unique in combination ‘energy’ and geological survey Increasing professionalism world wide Many general problems: lack of standards, quality/skills of employees, running costs, software, legislation, 3rd party contracts with government Most countries (try to) archive raw field data (in spite of huge data sets and uncertainty with reliability of back ups) UK, Norway and Netherlands agreed to propose a definition for exchanging digital reports

8. Delft, november 25, 2004 Footer8 Digital reports We receive digital reports in two ways: Without media (e-mail, FTP) On media (CD, DVD or USB) Formats Word, Excel, Access TIF, JPG, PDS PDF HTML, XML

9. Delft, november 25, 2004 Footer9 Problem The sometimes complex structured files are difficult to process as it is often unclear what files are exactly required and which files are extra. Also archiving in the long term is almost impossible. Formats may not longer be supported Media will decay Autorun options will not start from within a database or even after downloading At the moment we ZIP complex reports (well seismic)

10. Delft, november 25, 2004 Footer10 Possible way out Preferred (open) formats TIF PDF(a) Reports accompanied by a specified list of metadata explaining the report so it can be found again later on