Practical Well-log Standards Phase 2 Houston 15 th 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

Agenda 09:30Introduction 09:45Phase 1 Summary and Analysis 10:45UK Meeting Report 11:30 Lessons Learned 12:00Lunch 13:00Phase 2 Definition/Planning 14:00Going Forward 15:00 Wrap-up – next meeting

Introduction David Archer Agenda End

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 recognized central source for well-log naming standards End

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 VolumeBusiness Value 50,000+ 'Visible' Acquisition Curves 1000+? ‘Useful’ Curves Category 1 Category 3 Category 2 mapping Data Overload! End

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 * 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 End Generalist Specialist

Clear Names Tool 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 Purpose: to ‘de-mystify’ proprietary and esoteric naming systems End

Generic Tool Type Attribute Examples Tool Type Description End

Clear Names CURVE 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 Curve Types provide an additional context for reducing visual clutter and ordering/structuring enquiries End

Curve and Property Type Attribute Examples Curve Type Property 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

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

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

Project Management Phase 1 consists of: Definition Phase Delivery Stage 1 Delivery Stage 2 Delivery Stage 3 End of Phase 1 Dec delivery stages 1 definition phase tool lists and grouping attribute definitions and usages tools grouped by stage and service company service companies make initial classifications service company classifications 'normalised' TechCom, Steering Group approval and publication End 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 Agenda End Business Framework and Maintenance are very important Communicate results – but it takes resources

Phase 2 Definition Participation 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

Phase 2 Definition Participation 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

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

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 Implementation Involve application vendors A database demonstrator (also communication) DLIS and WellLogML End

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

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

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

Phase 2 Definition Maintenance Release ‘moderator’ Release Schedules Long-term funding End

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 AgendaEND End

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