You Bought the Machine. You Don’t Own the Data.

Late last year, I spoke with several IT engineers at a major European energy company about connectivity options for offshore—and potentially remote onshore—assets. It was a fairly typical conversation about terrestrial and non-terrestrial network options.  The engineers understood the connectivity discussion, but then said something that showed me we had not fully understood their situation:

“Connectivity is our second problem. Our first problem is actually getting access to the data. When we fix that, we can have a conversation about connectivity options.”

Nearly a year later, I heard a similar concern from a mining executive responsible for OT and some IT. We were discussing hybrid connectivity when he explained that connectivity was necessary, but not his immediate constraint. Much of the operational data he needed from the mine was not under his control. Without usable access to that data, additional connectivity could not deliver its full value.

I had walked into both conversations with a simple assumption: if you own the asset and buy the equipment that operates it, you also control the data that equipment generates.

That assumption was wrong.

Mining and energy operators often rely on OT (operational technology) installed, maintained, and sometimes operated by the OEM (original equipment manufacturer). The equipment is tightly coupled to the manufacturer’s software platform, which collects sensor and performance data, displays it within its own system, and produces reports.

Access to the underlying data may require another subscription. Even then, the data may arrive in a proprietary format that cannot be easily integrated into the operator’s wider IT environment.
This is not simply a connectivity problem. It is a combination of contractual control, data portability, interoperability, and commercial incentive. Standards such as OPC UA (Open Platform Communications Unified Architecture) can improve technical interoperability, but they do not by themselves guarantee the data or the right to use it elsewhere.

There is a better technical path. Some smaller OT providers are adopting standards such as OPC UA as a competitive differentiator, making it easier for operators to move data between operational systems and their wider IT environments. Established OEMs have less incentive to accelerate that transition where proprietary platforms and data access support recurring subscription revenue. OPC UA cannot grant contractual ownership or data availability, but it can remove some of the technical friction once access is permitted.

For a mining executive trying to build a unified view of worldwide operations, that distinction matters. A network can transport data only after the operator can obtain it in a usable form.

Two conversations are not a dataset, and I am not claiming a measured trend. But when the same constraint surfaces independently in energy IT and mining OT, it is worth naming before it is worth quantifying.