The Long Winding Road to an NDR in the United States Christopher Keane and Marcus E. Milling American Geological Institute Alexandria, Virginia, USA www.agiweb.org 20 September 2005

Geoscience Data in the United States (2002) Reflections from NDR4 (Stavanger) US was substantially behind everyone in national policy US has some of the largest historical holdings Data awareness Geoscience data only valued as current asset Geoscience data entirely absent from law-maker’s agenda

Data Repositories in the United States Mineral and hydrocarbon rights belong to property owner Onshore data policy is controlled by the states, except on Federal lands Data is the property of the operating company Copies of data collected on federal land or offshore leases must be provided to Minerals Management Service. MMS reported data remains proprietary for 25 years Distributed Data Repository System: Private companies, state geological surveys, and federal agencies

Primary Data Holders in the US Petroleum Companies - decreasing reliance on internal repository functions Private Repositories - provides storage, management and access for a fee to companies Service Companies - Collects and stores data for resale State Geological Surveys - Stores local, largely non-proprietary data collections Federal Government - Well records for data from federal lands and offshore leases

Centralizing US Data Holdings? No historical precedent for centralization Concern of government infringement on private companies Data volumes make task unmanageable Much data retains long-term strategic value to companies Question of who covers the costs

American Geological Institute National Geoscience Data Repository System Objectives and Goals Preserve geoscience data Network existing data repositories Improve user access to quality data Decrease cost of data management Reduce data redundancy

NGDRS 1995 Data Transfer Targets Cores and cuttings: 17.5M linear feet Seismic: 100M line-miles Scout tickets: 2.5M tickets Well logs: 6.5M logs Paper records: 500K

Example Large Data Transfers Shell Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Facility in Midland Cores, logs, etc. PLUS money to endow the facility BP Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Facility in Houston Cores, cuttings, paleo PLUS money and property to endow the facility BP Oklahoma Geological Survey Brought money and data to OGS for public access Chevron AGI USGS Brings offshore west coast US seismic data to the public Legal model for transfers

NGDRS Achievements Public and private financial support DOE grants: $3.8M Corporate operational contributions: $770K Corporate capital support: $2.1M Data transfers to date Cores/Cuttings: 14.9M linear feet ($19.9M) Paleo samples: 43.2M linear feet equivalent ($50K) Seismic data: 961 line-miles ($960K) Other data: Logs, scout tickets, etc. ($1.4M ) Integrated public data State surveys: 330K linear feet ($440K) Federally-held cores: 1.1M linear feet ($1.4M) State/Federal logs: 685K Logs ($2.74M) Total preservation investment 1992-2001 (less public data) $29.0M

Retaining Geoscience Data Value NGDRS Program ROI was 6.5:1 for DOE investments Transferred 74% of targeted data from at-risk proprietary status to public access and protected Establishing stable State and regional repositories Establishing indexing and preservation standards

Key Transfer Model Developments Continued storage sometimes less expensive than transportation Virtual catalogs allow privately-held, but accessible data to see “daylight” In-Situ donations already demonstrated by ChevronTexaco for core. Model is likely applicable to other data types.

Report from the US National Academy of Sciences National Academy of Sciences to publish report on Preservation of Geoscience Data in April 2002 Key issues Acknowledged the value of geoscience data to society Called for keeping data local to the source as a priority Called for the establishment of 3 regional repositories Defined greatest costs in transport and indexing Indexing quality is key for value retention

Sponsored Research Repositories Publicly sponsored research data has few archiving requirements DOSECC-related programs have generated substantial cores Many university repositories are at-risk NSF responds to the NRC report by identifying a repository for physical data from its funded projects.

Energy Policy Act of 2005 SEC. 2011 Energy Policy Act of 2005 SEC. 2011. PRESERVATION OF GEOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL DATA First congressional recognition of geoscience data as a national issue (1) to archive geologic, geophysical, and engineering data , maps, well logs, and samples; (2) to provide a national catalog of such archival material; and (3) to provide technical and financial assistance related to the archival material.

Energy Policy Act of 2005 Highlights Specifies that state agencies are to hold the data Authorizes funds to states from the federal government to archive data from federal lands Calls for the creation of a catalog system that integrates the data held across the state repositories Catalog will be distinctly separate from state agency repositiories For non-federal lands data, federal costs share can not exceed 50%

The Future Repository Situation Authorization != Appropriation Slated for $30M per year, at some point Need to lobby on data implications in hazards Hurricane Katrina Terrorism

NGDRS Into The Future Original program went away because of success! New program will look similar Distributed state repositories Central metadata catalog Key Differences This Time Around Congressional support Improved technology at state surveys Geoinformatics initiative at NSF Sound legal transfer models Repository space is not as critical a crisis Multiple agency initiatives coalescing….

Multiple Agency Opportunities GEOSS USGS NOAA Data Preservation Congress Homeland Security Data Repository Funding Opportunities Cyberinfrastructure Security Monitoring National Science Foundation Defense