Bug: offshore areas missing on all lands production

[meiqimichelle]

Chris guesses that we're missing the federal offshore portion of the data. The total looks like it has all of this info, but we don't have breakouts for the offshore areas. Chris also wants to double-check that the state portions of the offshore production is included in the state totals.

Brian, for your reference, this data is potentially only relevant for the oil and gas commodity types. Maaaaaaybe there's some offshore minerals. Maybe.

/cc @gemfarmer @Isabelle1512 @mentastc

[Isabelle1512]

Brian and I were chatting about this last week. Yes, the only commodities where we should see offshore are oil and gas. Brian and I looked at the gas data, which breaks out totals in different ways, including state total (biggest category), offshore, federal offshore, and state offshore. Since the offshore geographic areas for gas don't match with the federal ones, we discussed just providing the total for the state and explaining it included the waters offshore. For oil, they have a specific gulf of mexico category and a PADD 5 category, which look to be unique from the state totals. EIA PADDs available here: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=4890

[meiqimichelle]

Hmmm. I think we should find 10 minutes to talk options with Chris -- confusing! :-/

[gemfarmer]

What @Isabelle1512 said. My understanding was that because the data didn't match the offshore areas we have defined, we would use the total for each state (which includes offshore areas).

An example of this would be a the column Federal Offshore--Gulf of Mexico Field Production of Crude Oil (Thousand Barrels). We have Western, Eastern, and Central Gulf of Mexico, representing this would be difficult.

But a conversation with Chris would be good!

[gemfarmer]

At the very least, I should add documentation to explain how the all lands data is parsed.

[gemfarmer]

It looks like @shawnbot and @mentastc were already looking into this issue more generally -> #933

[meiqimichelle]

I think #933 is similar, but not the same thing. Let's continue the all-lands production data chat here. @mentastc and @Isabelle1512 talked in standup about this and have some updates (hint hint).

[mentastc]

It looks like for natural gas the data can go into our current visualizations for offshore. with oil it may be more difficult. PADD 5 offshore is Alaska and Pacific. So how do we include this? we could spend time to develop the visualization to make that one offshore area or for now maybe we just include it in the data as Federal Offshore- Alaska & Pacific (not mapped). Just a thought.

[gemfarmer]

@mentastc A few points of clarification:

• For natural gas, are you saying that the current breakdown (omitting the offshore visual representation) is ok? Or that it is possible to connect a state's 'offshore' area to one of our defined topojson boundaries?

If the latter, I think I'll need you to show me how they correspond.

• For oil, it sounds like there are two options on the table that you are suggesting. 1. that we make new boundaries that correspond to the regions that are defined in the data? So have a region for Gulf of Mexico instead of E, C, and W GOM. 2. exclude the federal offshore data from the map portion, but include it in the region breakdown with a (not mapped) caveat.

If the first option, I think I should talk to @shawnbot so that we can coordinate efforts a la #933

[Isabelle1512]

@gemfarmer @mentastc : Chris and I chatted today and contrary to what you (Brian!) and I were discussing, Chris thought for gas it was possible to map the offshore categories to the defined topojson boundaries (offshore planning areas from the federal production data). However, in the case of oil, PADD 5 covers both the Artic (Alaska) and Pacific (California etc.), We can't divide the PADD 5 number between these two areas, so we don't know what to do there. Still in Oil, the Gulf of Mexico (the other offshore category) should be able to map to existing shapes just fine...

[gemfarmer]

@Isabelle1512 @mentastc

Natural Gas – Because this data is broken down by state onshore/state offshore, I don't think that this is possible with the current offshore areas (correct me if I'm wrong @shawnbot), but should be once the changes are made from #933, which will allow each state to have an offshore subregion. :smile: #933 doesn't actually address this, but @shawnbot and I are touching base tomorrow to see if that is possible Oil – That makes sense to me. It sounds like we will need to create a new offshore region Gulf of Mexico (addressed in PR #1023)

[shawnbot]

So @gemfarmer, #933 is addressed by #1023. Take a look at these diffs, specifically:

• Federal production: HTML and JS
• Federal revenue by location: HTML and JS

If you see issues with bounding boxes on the maps, see this note and check out where I've specifically added viewBox attributes to the maps that include offshore regions in the HTML diffs above. Let me know if you have any questions or problems!