Security & trust
Five questions operators ask before a pilot.
Orogenruns the analysis on its plane and keeps the data on yours — we'd rather answer the same five questions honestly, in plain subsurface English, than wave at certifications we haven't earned yet. Here's what we tell operators before the first pilot, and what we'll show Compliance on request.
The five objections
Answered in writing, with the same honesty we'd want from a vendor.
Data security, ecosystem fit, headcount posture, model provenance, and the SOC 2 timeline — the same five questions a geoscience VP asks in the first scoping call.
- OBJECTION 01
Objection 01 · Data security & isolation
“Where does our SEG-Y and WITSML actually live when Orogen runs?”
Our plane runs the analysis; your plane keeps the data. Surveys and telemetry stay in the operator’s storage, behind the operator’s identity boundary; Orogen reads what its connectors are pointed at and writes briefs back into your team’s channel. There is no implicit copy out of SEG-Y volumes, WITSML streams, or interpreted horizons — and no model training on operator data, ever. We don’t claim host-side certifications we haven’t earned; the full data-isolation posture pack is available on request, under NDA, for Enterprise scoping.
- Data plane
- Operator-owned object storage + identity boundary
- Tenancy
- Per-operator isolated agent fleet, no shared weights
- Training
- No model training on operator data — by contract
- OBJECTION 02
Objection 02 · SLB ecosystem fit
“Does this mean replacing Petrel and DecisionSpace?”
No — cohabiting, not competing. Orogen sits alongside Petrel and DecisionSpace, reading the streams your wells and surveys already produce — SLB TruLink, SLB Stream, SEG-Y exports, and live WITSML telemetry. Your geoscientists keep working in the tools they already trust, and Orogen turns the live stream into a ranked, briefed queue that lands in the same channel. There is no rip-and-replace, no re-interpretation of your existing project tree, and no requirement to push your stack through a different portfolio.
- Read from
- SLB TruLink, SLB Stream, WITSML, SEG-Y
- Write back to
- Same squad channel the team already uses
- Replacement
- None — interpretation stays in Petrel
- OBJECTION 03
Objection 03 · Augmentation vs replacement
“Are you selling headcount displacement?”
We’re selling the team in seat, not against it. Exploration groups use Orogen to prioritize acreage, screen candidates faster, and respond to pressure transients the moment they appear — with the geoscientists, completions engineers, and operations leads they already have. Each detection arrives ranked and briefed, with the inputs the agent used and a confidence envelope attached, so a human owns the call. The point is throughput per person, not reduction in force.
- Posture
- Amplify the team in seat, not reduce it
- Ownership
- Human owns the call on every detection
- Throughput
- More acres, more wells, same headcount
- OBJECTION 04
Objection 04 · Model provenance & explainability
“Why did the agent flag that — and can we audit it?”
Every detection carries the inputs it used and a confidence envelope, and every brief attaches the raw traces the agent saw. We don’t claim to be fully interpretable — no modern subsurface agent can be — but we do give you the audit trail: the SEG-Y volume and trace index, the WITSML channels and time window, the specific feature the detector tripped on, and the confidence range the model assigned. That envelope moves the conversation from “trust the model” to “read the same evidence the model read.”
- Per-detection
- Inputs used + confidence envelope
- Per-brief
- Raw survey traces + telemetry window attached
- Audit posture
- Evidence-give, not verdict-give
- OBJECTION 05
Objection 05 · SOC 2 roadmap & compliance timeline
“What can you show Compliance today — and when?”
SOC 2 Type I scoping is underway, with Type I targeted by Q4 2026 and Type II in the calendar year following. Until then we share the full compliance posture pack — control inventory, vendor stack, data-handling posture, and the current attestation gap list — on request and under NDA, specifically for Enterprise scoping. Where the current posture is short of a finalized attestation we say so in writing, instead of naming controls we haven’t finished implementing.
- Type I
- Targeted by Q4 2026 — scoping underway
- Type II
- Calendar year following Type I
- Today
- Posture pack under NDA, for Enterprise scoping
Compliance timeline
Where we are on SOC 2 — and when each milestone lands.
A reading of our own roadmap, in the same calendar terms Compliance uses. Full posture pack — control inventory, vendor stack, data-handling posture, and current gap list — available on request and under NDA for Enterprise scoping.
| Milestone | Target | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Control inventory + gap list | Now | In progress |
| Vendor & subprocess stack under NDA | Now | In progress |
| SOC 2 Type I — observation window | Q3 2026 | Planned |
| SOC 2 Type I — attestation | Q4 2026 | Planned |
| SOC 2 Type II — observation window | 2027 | Planned |
We share the full compliance posture pack on request and under NDA, specifically for Enterprise scoping. Where the current posture is short of a finalized attestation we say so in writing — instead of naming controls we haven't finished implementing.
Next step
The fastest path to the same diligence is a short pilot on your data — one well, one survey, one friction point. We'll send a pilot proposal and a calendar link the same week, typically the same day.