Practical Welllog Standards Phase 2 Houston 15th February, 2001 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 28
About This Presentation
Title:

Practical Welllog Standards Phase 2 Houston 15th February, 2001

Description:

Presentation modified to capture some issues raised at the meeting. Use ... Misapplication of existing standards. Arbitrary addition of further classifications ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:52
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 29
Provided by: davec6
Learn more at: http://www.posc.org
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Practical Welllog Standards Phase 2 Houston 15th February, 2001


1
Practical Well-log StandardsPhase 2Houston
15th February, 2001
  • NOTE
  • Presentation modified to capture some issues
    raised at the meeting
  • Use Screenshow Mode. Screen Hyperlinks are
    red-outline boxes. Othe navigators appear at
    screen bottom right

d.camden_at_flare-consultants.com
2
Agenda
  • 0930 Introduction
  • 0945 Phase 1 Summary and Analysis
  • 1045 UK Meeting Report
  • 1130 Lessons Learned
  • 1200 Lunch
  • 1300 Phase 2 Definition/Planning
  • 1400 Going Forward
  • 1500 Wrap-up next meeting

3
Introduction
  • David Archer

End
Agenda
4
Well-Log Management Business Issues
  • Data overload
  • Too many curves - users cant find the important
    data
  • Complex naming
  • Both curve and LOG (collection of curves) names
    are complex and changing at an ever increasing
    rate
  • No consistency over time
  • Confusing for experts and generalists alike
  • No recognized central source for well-log naming
    standards

End
5
Data Overload
  • Business Value
  • Real Business Value is concentrated in a
    relatively small number of data curves - filtered
    views focus on high value data

Data Overload!
End
6
Confusing Names
  • CURVE Names
  • Sonics DT1R, DT4P, DT4S, DT5, DTCR, DTMN, DTRP,
    DTSD, DTSM, DTHC, DTHU
  • Densities RHOZ, NRHB, RHOM, HNRH, HRHO, RHOB,
    HDEB, HROM
  • 712, 7121, 7122
  • All Sonics DT, Densities RHOB
  • GR_ED_001_AJB
  • LOG/Tool Names
  • GRAND SLAM
  • DSI Vs DSST Vs SDT?
  • PEX (HALS)
  • HALS, HDLL, HDIL, HGNS, HNGS, HRDD, HRGD
  • PROC1
  • DAVE21
  • 22MAY97
  • COMP
  • GEOL
  • LOG refers to a collection of curves
  • for example from a logging acquisition or
  • interpretation process

End
7
Clear NamesTool
Purpose to de-mystify proprietary and
esoteric naming systems
  • Tool Names for acquisition data
  • Keep full technical/marketing name
    (information)
  • Generic Tool String Name from component Tool
    Types (this is main LOG-level NAME that is
    understandable to all and will be time-invariant
  • Specific Tool String Name created by
    concatenating component tool names (information
    and searchable)
  • (Other process stages)
  • standard names for key composite and CPI data
    sets

End
8
Generic Tool Type AttributeExamples
Description
Tool Type
End
9
Clear NamesCURVE
Curve Types provide an additional context for
reducing visual clutter and ordering/structuring
enquiries
  • CURVES
  • Keep original Mnemonic as CURVE NAME
  • Curve Property Type Curve Type generic
    classifications which helps user understand
    purpose and can be used to drive processing
  • Property Type based on extending Schlumbergers
    original classifications
  • Curve Type a short-form version of the above
    based on mnemonic tokens
  • Property Type and Curve Type map one-to-one
  • DESCRIPTION a text description of the curve

End
10
Curve and Property Type AttributeExamples
Property Type
Curve Type
  • Note on Curve Type Structure
  • Separator improves readability
  • Hierarchical structure - can set to level of
    detail required
  • Structure facilitates searching/listing
  • Can be treated as a single value (easy to use in
    existing systems)

End
11
Phase 1 Deliverables
  • Standard CURVE level attributes and reference
    values
  • Business Value
  • Property and Curve Type
  • Classification hierarchy
  • Standard TOOL level attributes and reference
    values
  • Generic, Technical and Marketing Tool Names
  • Web-based delivery mechanism

End
12
Phase 1 Project Management
  • POSC Multi-company sponsored Project
  • POSC Management
  • Flare Consultants as Technical Contractor
  • Project Management
  • Steering Group
  • Technical Committee

End
13
Project Management
  • Phase 1 consists of
  • 1 definition phase
  • tool lists and grouping
  • attribute definitions and usages
  • 3 delivery stages
  • tools grouped by stage and service company
  • service companies make initial classifications
  • service company classifications 'normalised'
  • TechCom, Steering Group approval and publication

End
Agenda
14
Lessons Learned
Build on existing work but need to balance
legacy effects
Things always take longer than expected
Main classification issues are understood and
solved
Is TechCom Steering Group split effective?
Difficult to get oil company involvement/feedback
The project is deemed a success but uptake will
be the real test
End
15
Success Factors
Need enthusiasm to keep Projects moving forward
Business Framework and Maintenance are
very important
Communicate results but it takes resources
End
Agenda
16
Phase 2 DefinitionParticipation
  • Acquisition companies their support is critical
  • Undertake the bulk of the technical work
  • Key to implementation in delivery systems
  • Focus on technical details of acquisition process
  • Baker and Schlumberger have already expressed an
    interest
  • Halliburton?
  • Others?
  • Oil Companies
  • Needed to provide a reality-check on
    deliverables
  • Focus on use of well-log data

End
17
Phase 2 DefinitionParticipation
  • Software Vendors
  • Applications that make use of the standards
  • Data Vendors
  • Standard presentation of products will help
    customers
  • Government Agencies
  • Use of standards in regional/national
    repositories will facilitate data sharing

End
18
Phase 2 Definition
  • Define target customers
  • Generalist
  • Tool-level standards
  • Curve definitions for KEY products (Composites,
    CPIs) only
  • Specialist
  • Curve-level standards

End
19
Phase 2 Definition
  • Website and Communications
  • Define user groups/functionality
  • Define information content
  • Develop Web interface
  • Communicate Phase 1 results
  • Communicate Phase 1 issues (non-consistency of
    application of standards)

End
20
Phase 2 Definition
  • Implementation
  • Involve application vendors
  • A database demonstrator (also communication)
  • DLIS and WellLogML

End
21
Phase 2 Definition
  • Additional Classifications
  • Composited (joined) curves
  • Generalist sets
  • Interpreted curves
  • Genaralist sets
  • Commercial Packages
  • Historical acquisition tools
  • Dipmeter/Image tools
  • Formation Pressure tools
  • Core Data
  • Deviation Data (survey and interpolated)
  • Mud Log data
  • VSP

End
22
Phase 2 Definition
  • Business and Project Management
  • Sponsorship
  • Develop business case
  • Project Management structures
  • Timelines for deliverables
  • Open Spirit

End
23
Maintenance of Phase 1
  • Current maintenance is self-policing
  • Website can be updated by authorised service
    company users
  • Current standards are held as (an extendable)
    look-up list
  • Question
  • Is this sufficient to prevent standards creep
    due to
  • Misapplication of existing standards
  • Arbitrary addition of further classifications
  • If not, what is the alternative and is it
    cost-effective?

End
24
Phase 2 Definition
  • Maintenance
  • Release moderator
  • Release Schedules
  • Long-term funding

End
25
Phase 2 Definition
  • Phase 2 Timing
  • Phase 1 Stages were highly coupled
  • Could deliver Stages more easily if coupling was
    minimal
  • Older technology tools are unlikely to require
    much additional technical input
  • Processed and Interpreted products are not
    strongly linked to tools
  • Phase 2 is behind Phase 1 in terms of annual
    cycle. Should optimise early deliverables before
    summer holiday season

End
Agenda
END
26
London Meeting Participants
  • UK Department of Trade and Industry
  • UK Offshore Operators Association (CDA)
  • Norwegian Petroleum Directorate
  • Baker Hughes
  • British Gas
  • Enterprise Oil
  • Ilex Limited
  • Paradigm
  • PetroData as
  • PGS
  • Phillips Petroleum
  • Shell (UK and Holland)
  • Statoil

27
London Meeting Outcome
  • Created a list of potential work items
  • Discussion and clarification of work items
  • Feedback after meeting on prioritisation
  • London Feedback Spreadsheet (ordered)

Agenda
28
Phase 2 Management
  • David Archer

Agenda
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com