No not the feel-good-cheesy Kevin Costner baseball flick, real fields.  Oil fields that is.  Whether the topic of conversation is soaring gas prices, environmental impacts or new technologies it all comes back to oil fields, and the fact that every year there are less barrels in the ground, and the stuff that is there is getting harder to reach. 

These and other factors, like cost higher prices for output,  a increasingly aging workforce, with decreasing fewer graduates entering the industry; increased competition; and more stringent health, safety and environmental (HSE) regulations together mean oil and gas companies need to seek greater cost-effectiveness.  One way to achieve this is improve traditionally labor-intensive oil operations into with technology-driven “digital oil fields.  The concept if far from pie-in-the-sky dreams.  As this article points out every major private-sector oil company has a digital oil field initiative in place — Shell’s Smart Fields, BP’s Field of the Future, and Chevron’s iFields as well as most large national oil companies, including Saudi Aramco, Petrobras, and Kuwait Oil Company.  Regardless of the name used they all share common characteristics with the Digital Oilfield of the Future (DOFF)

Any literature or presentation you see on DOFF will tell you that one of the keys to success is establishing a solid data architecture and communication infrastructure. Real-time data management is essential for capturing, storing, and distributing the data that provide real-time asset awareness and support fast, accurate decision making.  Good decisions mean good success, but only if they are made on timely access to high-quality data to lets the right people, make the right decisions at the right time.  Now where have I heard that phrase used before… Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? …the benefits of using standardized OPC communications and products.

What can OPC offer field of the future type initiatives? A few thoughts

- The breadth of OPC connectivity products makes it possible for companies to standardize all their connectivity, or better yet even from one OPC source.

- OPC is complimentary to a broad range of industry standard protocols yet independent of which ones each entity chooses to use. This eliminates the need for prolonged discussion around trying to get everyone to agree on the ONE protocol to use.

- OPC solutions are ideally suited to dealing with the growing legacy system problem

- Secure, DCOM-Free, and Firewall-compatible OPC technology allows for simple, hassle free data communications between upstream entities without colliding with the IT departments.

- OPC is well suited to work with real-time data, historical data and event driven data.

- OPC HDA solutions like Hub-and-Spoke architectures addresses data ownership issues by allowing different parties to store and share data without interfering with each other’s systems. This is especially important for remote operators who need access to up-to-date and recent history.

- OPC HDA history data links greatly simplifies consolidating historical data among different storage systems.

- OPC based redundancy and reliability solutions would be a given for remotely distributed assets like an oil field.

- And of course if you look you can find trusted OPC vendors who offer global, 24/7 support assistance J.

So what do you think?  Is the Field of the Future a Field of Dreams? or an achievable reality if everyone focuses on standards based solutions?  If you build it, they will come. (cost saving benefits that is)

Pwnd (owned) - derived from the word “own” that implies domination or humiliation of a rival.  In hacker jargon, to “pwn” means “to compromise” or “to control,” specifically another ,server, PC, gateway device, or application

I don’t really get the whole internet slang of endless acronyms or using random letters in place of others.  Of course if you’re L33T you needn’t be constrained to using just letters either.  I don’t try too hard to keep up with this stuff, since by the time my kids are old enough to be using them, anything I’ve learned will have by then been relegated as geezer words like Cool, Phat and 23 Skidoo.   

Anyway… the thing that got me thinking down this track was an article I came across this week on BlackHat.  The Wonderware DOS vulnerability of recent months has the dubious honor of being nominated for a ‘Pwnie Award’ in the category of ‘Lamest Vendor Response’.  The whole politics of disclosure and vendor response time has been rehashed enough.  What piqued my interest is that SCADA security is once again crossing into the  ‘popular’ security spotlight.  Another example of crossover would be the DNS vulnerability reports hitting mainstream media.  These days, any story on cyber security seems to sell.  Yet is it translating into more secure systems?  I wonder if the fact that a major vulnerability has been revealed in such a key part of the Net’s infrastructure will make a difference. Many companies, particularly in the Industrial Automation world, still seem content with one or two layers of IT security.  “We got a firewall, and a password policy.  We’re good.”

Next week MatrikonOPC is releasing the OPC Security Gateway.  This aggregating server makes full use of the OPC Security specification, and provides authentication between OPC client and server connections.  That means in addition to DCOM security, users can now fully control which OPC clients can browse, read and/or write on a per tag basis in any OPC server.  A powerful security feature not seen in the vast majority of OPC products on the market today.  The OPC Security Gateway would become the secure front-end and provide this added security even if the OPC Clients do not support the OPC Security specification.

It will be very interesting to see how many companies choose to make use of this increased security layer.  Are mainstream stories like the Wonderware and DNS vulnerabilities enough incentive?  Or will some major refinery or utility need to get good and truly ‘pwned’ first?  Time will tell.

What about your company? Is cyber security and/or OPC security really a concern, or does the PR machine just pay lip service? Are there special considerations for security with your OPC installations? Would a product like the OPC Security Gateway which adds security at the Automation layer be a no-brainer for your IT folk?  If not, just tell them that the really L33T companies are using it. J

I’m back from my short camping trip and am slowly whittling down the accumulation piled up in the Inbox.  (It was only a week so I haven’t had to plead E-mail bankruptcy).   Usually when I’m off on vacation, I try to check in with my mail occasionally, but this trip the closest thing to wireless infrastructure would have been carrier pigeons.  Actually after watching the eagles hunting over the lake even carrier pigeons wouldn’t be all that reliable J  

The e-mail thing got me thinking about Maximum Uptime verses Guaranteed Data Delivery.  Anyone who uses e-mail and leaves the office uses these data concepts without even thinking about it.  Yet when people are designing their OPC communication infrastructure these concepts are often neglected or misunderstood.

Maximum Uptime is exactly as it sounds.  Your setup is designed to maximize access to the data as much as possible.  For e-mail users that means taking a laptop, cell phone or Blackberry along.  You data availability depends on your setup.  Ad-hoc wireless hotspots, plain text to cell phone, full e-mail access on a hand-held or even satellite connections.  Savvy e-mail users choose the right equipment or phone plan to meet their traveling needs.  For OPC users maximum uptime typically means redundant communication channels, and the data availability also depends on the setup.  The system might use Device level redundancy so each OPC server supports multiple redundant communication channels to underlying devices.  It might have Server level redundancy so each OPC client can failover to redundant servers, or it may have redundant OPC client capability.  Or any combination of the three.  System designers also have to think about how fast failover transfers need to occur and what trade offs in system performance or loading is acceptable to achieve these times.

Guaranteed Data Delivery is a slightly different design.  Here the goal is to ensure all the data is captured, but it is acceptable to have delays in accessing the information.  Guaranteed Data Delivery is pretty much inherent in any e-mail system.  The e-mail server buffers the incoming e-mails until the client downloads them.  All the data is there, even days after they hit the server.  (Even if you get 183 Unread Inbox Items in a week).   For OPC users Guaranteed Data Delivery designs usually incorporate OPC data buffers to store the data, and OPC HDA applications to ensure the data makes it to the final destination.

In practice many mission critical systems the design would incorporate both aspects of redundancy and data buffering.

What about the masses out there?  Do you maximize uptime and stay connected on vacation or more rely on guaranteed data delivery and just sort the pile when you get back?  What about your OPC systems?  Redundancy? Data Buffering?  Neither?  Both?

Summer is here, and often the ‘go-to guy or gal’ for a given question is on vacation or otherwise not available (Like Canada Day or Fourth of July extended long weekends).  The folks in MatrikonOPC Support and Site Services seem to be putting extra effort this week into adding to the OPC Knowledge Base.  Of course that might just be routine maintenance and have nothing to do with rotating summer vacations.  (Speaking of not being around, I’m off for a few days of quiet camping beside a remote mountain lake. No Wi-Fi.  No cell phone.  No posts for next week.)  

It’s inevitable in any company that the person who’s been around the longest, seen the most or is just good at solving problems becomes the go-to person for a particular skill.  Since OPC has been around for over 10 years now and is used some much, across so many industries, are companies developing their own in-house OPC problem solvers, or do they rely on OPC vendors for help?  Now that OPC UA is becoming a reality how does that affect the in-house guru’s?  Are they getting up to speed on OPC UA with training courses and webinars, or will the experience just come with time?

I suppose part of the answer depends on what sort of issues people are facing, and how severely it impacts their business.  So, what are the most common OPC problems you experience?  Is it DCOM? OPC Enum or remote connection problems?  Vendor interoperability? Windows domains or cross platform problems? Security concerns?  Let me know, so I can ponder the answers as I watch the sunset dip into that mountain lake next week J

One of the items in the industrial automation news this week was Foxboro’s 100th anniversary.  A lot of history there, and I’m sure I must have come across one of the original control systems on a site visit or two J   Seriously though, I joke about companies having antique control systems in place, but how many of your sites have some dusty relics still on active duty?  Many of the original proprietary systems where fairly simple, designed for a harsh environment and did the job very well.  There are still many legacy systems in service, and many companies are looking to eek out as much life from them as they can.   Some of MatrikonOPC’s most popular servers are for legacy DCS systems like Foxboro AW50, Fisher-Rosemount RNI and Bailey INFI-90.  And new servers are still being written like the GE Mark V and the Honeywell TDC3000.  Why just this week the Fisher-Provox Direct server was released.  Seems to me there are a lot of folk hanging on to what is working for them.

On the other hand, Everything Old is New Again as they say.  All these systems have migration paths to shiny new models, which are typically more PC integrated and targeting Enterprise Integration.  Even OPC UA would be considered the next generation of connectivity.   With all the OPC UA news and the flurry of activity around the OPC UA SDK releases, it’s clear that there are plenty of folks looking to move on to the next great thing too.

For all those out there with legacy DCS systems installed, what’s the plan with respect to OPC?  Will the hardware be migrated up to the latest vendor version and assume that OPC is part of the new system?  Will the legacy stuff be connected into newer systems using the OPC we know and love today?  Or are people out there looking for native OPC UA servers to bridge the old and shiny new in one big step?

A lot of chatter about the Honeywell HUG in the industrial automation blogs this week.  Most of the talk is about their wireless offerings, the UOP simulation stuff, and the Safety and Batch integration in the newest release of Experion PKS.  Surprisingly there is no mention of their OPC offerings in the Experion system.  I wonder which release will incorporate the OPC UA specifications?  Of course there are plenty of systems out there using the tried and true OPC DA server, or going direct to the DCS with other OPC Servers for TPS.

An upcoming user group conference that definitely WILL be talking about OPC is the MatrikonOPC User Group Asia-Pacific and Australia 2008, being held in Singapore on July 29^th.  This free, one-day event will host several speakers, including Tom Burke.  If you’re in the area, don’t miss the opportunity to share your OPC experience with other users.  Learn what works, what doesn’t and learn the best practices others have implemented.

In today’s world of web-conferencing, virtual meetings, and soaring travel costs, I wonder how they affect user groups.  What do you prefer?  The week long extravaganza?  One-day of focused and intimate attention? Or maybe the traveling exiderdome? What’s your company’s preference?

Is it just me, or is OPC gaining a whole lot of momentum in building automation and energy management applications?  I’ve posted before on Green Data Centers and how some big companies are getting more serious about energy management.  For example for IBM’s Project Big Green initiative the company has committed $1 billion per year to deliver technologies that help customers increase energy efficiency in their data centers and physical plants.  Recently IBM has announced new software designed to help customers reduce costs associated with power and cooling.   IBM is combining the new energy management software with partner solutions to provide customers with a comprehensive view of energy consumption across the enterprise — not just in data centers but also in non-IT assets such as air conditioning equipment, power distribution units, lighting, and security systems.  The press release specifically talks about OPC interfaces to enable raw data flow into ITM energy management software from third party systems and building automation devices such as heating and air conditioning, lighting and fire and security alarms.

In response to a posting on OPC being used in major building automation projects, I got a comment about the Mori Tower project.   The new headquarters at Mori Tower in central Tokyo, occupies 11.6 hectares, and is one of the largest redevelopment projects undertaken in Japan. One of the key objectives was to implement a flexible system for centralized monitoring and control of multiple facilities.  As the Mori Tower has significant numbers of areas to be controlled, it was decided to choose an open method of communications based on the OPC standard.  Good choice    This particular article talks about accessing Citect with OPC, but of course you can always directly access the building automation systems as well.

With summer getting into full swing, the long weekends approaching, and both the thermometers and prices at the pump soaring, now’s a real good time to think about solutions to save.

There has been a lot of focus lately on providing system integrators with more tools, services and training on OPC topics.  As OPC becomes more prevalent and systems grow in size and complexity more and more system integrators and distributors are implementing OPC systems. 

I’ve blogged before on the new OPC Foundation membership option is called the SI&D category.  The SI&D membership is intended to provide a mechanism to facilitate the system integrators and distributors being able to design, develop and certify custom software.

OPC vendors also recognize that integrators have to deal with various suppliers of automation applications like PLCs, DCSs, sensors, end devices, production equipment, safety systems, etc. Project implementers know that even though data connectivity is a small part of the project scope, it can be a huge project risk due to the inherent difficulty of establishing multi-vendor communications.   Some vendors now offer more than just a wide selection of OPC connectivity to integrators.  Partnerships like the MatrikonOPC Integrator Program offer data connectivity services like: initial communication architecture design, connectivity software options and implementation support and training.

Programs such as these are a response the belief that end-users expect that system integrators should increase their proficiency of the use of the OPC technology. I’d like to hear your thoughts on system integrators.  From the integrators: Will you become an SI&D member? Do you see value in partnering with vendors with OPC expertise?  From the end-users: Does SI&D membership or participation in an Integrator Program affect who you would choose as the system integrator on your next project?

The folks in MatrikonOPC support have completed their testing on Windows XP Service Pack 3.   As mentioned in an earlier post Windows XP SP3 was released to manufacturing on April 21, 2008.  It went to the public via both the Microsoft Download Center and Windows Update on May 6, 2008.

Based on their testing, the MatrikonOPC software performs as expected, and no known gotchas.   From an OPC point of view, security would be configured as per XP SP2 settings.  In addition to functionality and performance testing, they looked at installation, licensing, remote DCOM and Tunnelling connections, and mixed network interoperability.  From what they see, it’s gets a clean bill of health.

With a total of 1,174 fixes have been included in SP3, it wouldn’t have been surprising to see something within DCOM get bent of shape.  Fortunately it looks like things are OK as far as OPC operations are concerned.

You should still check with your OPC vendor to ensure their products have been verified against XP SP3.   It’s possible some of the new features affect other parts of an application outside of the OPC or DCOM interfaces.  Some of the new features include:

• Turns Black hole router detection on by default
• Network Access Protection client
• Windows Imaging Component
• Credentials Security Service Provider
• Descriptive Security options in Group Policy/Local Security Policy user interface
•  An updated version of the Microsoft Kernel Mode Cryptographic Module that is FIPS 140-2 certified
• Installing without requiring a product key during setup for retail and OEM versions

Overall it looks like SP3 is nowhere near the painful experience that SP2 was for many users.  (Unless of course you installed some of the early RC builds or are running an HP AMD machine.).   If anyone out there is having OPC pain with their XP SP3, then drop me an update.

I often follow the forums on Globalspec.com, and this latest thread that asks the question “Where is the Critical Thinking in Engineering” caught my eye.  One of the posters follows up with several good questions to ponder…

·         Where is the critical thinking?

·         What is the role of critical thinking in Engineering as a profession?

·         Where does it come from in the development of a competent engineer or technical specialist? Is it taught? Demonstrated, or merely stumbled upon?

This particular topic is referring to Engineering as a whole, and sprouted from the originating topic of a dubious perpetual motion machine patent.  (Let’s not talk patents, shall we).  The subject matter got me thinking about the role of ‘critical thinking’ in OPC architectures.  There has been a lot of news lately focusing on OPC certification, the independent test labs and interoperability testing.  That’s all great stuff, since you can’t build a good OPC network without robust building blocks, but a good network also demands good thinking.  I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again; a solid, interoperable OPC network requires informed input from those that know and work with OPC.  With more OPC UA products hitting the market everyday, this is becoming even more important.    Regardless of what OPC flavor you are using, you need to be working with a trusted vendor who understands your requirements and has the products and services to meet your needs.   OPC has done amazing things with leveling the playing field for system interoperability.  However, no protocol, technology or product can remove the planning and understanding needed in creating industrial strength connections between different systems. 

The OPC Foundation and its members know this to be true, and are working on things to make it easier for end users find these knowledgeable vendors.  On the OPC Foundation front, the creation of the ‘SI&D (System Integrators and Distributors) category is a first step.   On the vendor, initiatives like the MatrikonOPC Integrator Program are designed to ensure system integrators have access to the necessary OPC architecture and design experts, products, training and supported for successful project implementation.  It’s all about education and communication on what works and how OPC fits best in your system.  (Without this, you have people getting the wrong impression like those Carl recently posted on.)

Where is the critical thinking in terms of OPC?  It’s with those that know and work with OPC every day.  Where does it come from?  Is it taught?  Demonstrated or stumbled upon?  In a word…  Yes.