1 / 23

Practical Well-log Standards Phase 2 London 30th Jebruary, 2001

Practical Well-log Standards Phase 2 London 30th Jebruary, 2001. Agenda. 10:00 Introduction 10:15 Phase 1 Summary and Analysis 11:15 Practical Implementation 11:30 Phase 2 Definition 12:30 Lunch 13:30 Phase 2 Management 14:00 Close. Introduction. David Archer. End. Agenda.

noelle
Télécharger la présentation

Practical Well-log Standards Phase 2 London 30th Jebruary, 2001

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Practical Well-log StandardsPhase 2London30th Jebruary, 2001

  2. Agenda • 10:00 Introduction • 10:15 Phase 1 Summary and Analysis • 11:15 Practical Implementation • 11:30 Phase 2 Definition • 12:30 Lunch • 13:30 Phase 2 Management • 14:00 Close

  3. Introduction • David Archer End Agenda

  4. Well-Log Management Business Issues • Data overload • Too many curves - users can’t 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 recognised central source for well-log naming standards End

  5. Data Volume Business Value 50,000+ 'Visible' Acquisition Curves 1000+? ‘Useful’ Curves Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 mapping 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. 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 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 Confusing Names 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 Use generic names to ‘de-mystify’ proprietary and esoteric naming systems • 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 Schlumberger’s 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 End

  13. Definition Phase Delivery Stage 1 Delivery Stage 2 Delivery Stage 3 End of Phase 1 Dec-2000 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

  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 Maintenance is very important Communicate results – but it takes resources End Agenda

  16. Maintenance in 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? • Release schedule? • Should there be a release schedule? End Success Factors

  17. Practical Implementation • Ingvar Espeland, PetroData • The value of a common standard • A common dictionary • Business Value provides a selective loading mechanism • Norwegian DISKOS database dependencies • Phase 2 required for completeness • DISKOS and CDA cooperation End Agenda

  18. Phase 2 Definition • Acquisition companies: their support is critical • Undertake the bulk of the technical work • 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

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

  20. Phase 2 Definition • Phase 2 Deliverables • Extend scope of acquisition tools covered • Older technology tools • Specialist tools • Production tools • Dipmeter/Image • Mechanical Inspection End

  21. Phase 2 Definition • Phase 2 Deliverables • Processed or Interpreted data sets • Composited sets (standard curve names/types, log names) • Interpreted sets • Web site improvements • Cater for generalist and specialist users End

  22. 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 END Agenda

  23. Phase 2 Management • David Archer Agenda

More Related