Transcript A Data Management Methodology

Practical Well-log Standards
Phase 2
Houston
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
[email protected]
Agenda








09:30
09:45
10:45
11:30
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
Introduction
Phase 1 Summary and Analysis
UK Meeting Report
Lessons Learned
Lunch
Phase 2 Definition/Planning
Going Forward
Wrap-up – next meeting
Introduction

End
David Archer
Agenda
Well-Log Management
Business Issues

Data overload


Complex naming


End
Too many curves - users can’t find the important
data
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
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 Volume
Business Value
50,000+
'Visible'
Acquisition
Curves
Category 1
Data Overload!
Category 3
mapping
End
1000+?
‘Useful’
Curves
Confusing Names

LOG*/Tool Names




GRAND SLAM
DSI Vs DSST Vs SDT?
PEX (HALS)
HALS, HDLL, HDIL,
HGNS, HNGS, HRDD,
HRGD
PROC1
DAVE21
22MAY97
COMP
GEOL
Generalist





* LOG refers to a collection of curves:
for example from a logging acquisition or
interpretation process
End

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
Specialist




Clear Names
Tool
Purpose: to ‘de-mystify’ proprietary
and esoteric naming systems

Tool Names: for acquisition data




(Other process stages)

End
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)
standard names for key ‘composite’ and ‘CPI’ data
sets
Generic Tool Type Attribute
Examples
Tool Type
ARES
ARIN
ARLL
ASON
CAL
CCL
CEM
DEN
DEN.NEU
DIP
ELEM
GR
IMG
IMGA
NEU
NEU.NEUP
NEUP
NMR
PERF
PRES
PRES.FLOW
RIN
RLL
RLL.RMIC
End
Description
Array Resistivity
Array Induction
Array Laterolog
Array Sonic
Caliper
Collar Locator
Cement Evaluation
Density
Density/Neutron
Dipmeter
Element
Gamma
Imaging Tool
Imaging Tool - Acoustic
Neutron Porosity (dual spaced)
Neutron Porosity/Pulsed Neutron
Pulsed Neutron
Nuclear Magnetic Resonance
Perforating
Pressure
Pressure/Flowmeter
Induction
Laterolog
Laterolog/Microresistivity
Clear Names
CURVE
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




End
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
Curve and Property Type Attribute
Examples
Curve Type
Property Type
AC.AMP.
AC.ATT.
AC.CBL.AMP.
AC.CBL.QUAL.
AC.DTD.
AC.POR.APP.LIM.
AC.POR.APP.SND.
AC.SLO.STN.
ACCEL.
ACCEL.X.
CAL.AC.
CAL.DIF.
CON.ARR.IND.
CON.ARR.LAT.
CON.DEP.
Acoustic_Amplitude
Acoustic_Attenuation_Rate
CBL_Amplitude
CBL_Quality_Indicator
Sonic_Data_Density
Sonic_Porosity_Limestone
Sonic_Porosity_Sandstone
Stoneley_Slowness
Acceleration
X_Acceleration
Acoustic_Caliper
Differential_Caliper
Induction_Array_Conductivity
Laterolog_Array_Conductivity
Deep_Conductivity
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
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


End
Generic, Technical and Marketing Tool Names
Web-based delivery mechanism
Phase 1 Project Management

POSC Multi-company sponsored Project



Project Management


End
POSC Management
Flare Consultants as Technical Contractor
Steering Group
Technical Committee
Project Management

Phase 1 consists of:


1 definition phase

tool lists and grouping

attribute definitions and usages
Delivery Stage 1
3 delivery stages




End
Definition
Phase
tools grouped by stage and service
company
Delivery Stage 2
service companies make initial
classifications
Delivery Stage 3
service company classifications
'normalised'
TechCom, Steering Group approval and
publication
End of
Phase 1
Dec-2000
Agenda
Lessons Learned
Things always take longer
than expected
Build on existing work –
but need to balance ‘legacy’ effects
Main classification issues
are understood and solved
Difficult to get oil company
involvement/feedback
Is TechCom – Steering Group
split effective?
The project is deemed a success but
uptake will be the real test
End
Success Factors
Need enthusiasm to keep
Projects moving forward
Business Framework and
Maintenance are very
important
Communicate results – but it
takes resources
End
Agenda
Phase 2 Definition
Participation

Acquisition companies: their support is critical







Oil Companies


End
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?
Needed to provide a ‘reality-check’ on deliverables
Focus on use of well-log data
Phase 2 Definition
Participation

Software Vendors


Data Vendors


Standard presentation of products will help
customers
Government Agencies

End
Applications that make use of the standards
Use of standards in regional/national repositories will
facilitate data sharing
Phase 2 Definition

Define target customers:

Generalist



Specialist

End
Tool-level standards
Curve definitions for KEY products (Composites, CPIs)
only
Curve-level standards
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
Phase 2 Definition

End
Implementation

Involve application vendors

A database demonstrator (also communication)

DLIS and WellLogML
Phase 2 Definition

Additional Classifications

Composited (joined) curves


End
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
Phase 2 Definition

End
Business and Project Management

Sponsorship

Develop business case

Project Management structures

Timelines for deliverables

Open Spirit
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) lookup list
Question:

Is this sufficient to prevent ‘standards creep’ due to



End
Misapplication of existing standards
Arbitrary addition of further classifications
If not, what is the alternative and is it cost-effective?
Phase 2 Definition

End
Maintenance

Release ‘moderator’

Release Schedules

Long-term funding
Phase 2 Definition

Phase 2 Timing


Phase 1 Stages were highly coupled
Could deliver Stages more easily if coupling was
minimal:



End
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
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

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
Phase 2 Management

David Archer
Agenda