Data Hierarchy – Petrophysics Consultant & Training

1. Data Hierarchy – Petrophysics Consultant & Training There are many options for how to use both numerical and qualitative data in a quantitative petrophysical workflow due to the ever-increasing amount of petrophysical information. Experts are usually the ones who make the final decision about which data to use and where to use them. He/she doesn't often discuss options with colleagues in other fields and is often unaware of all possibilities. This decision of where to store data and how to do it should be further explored and documented with guidelines on why or not. Although this thinking is not well-established in companies, it is a necessary step towards integrating data. Petrophysicists ignore a lot of useful data. Petrophysicists must be vigilant about the possible relevance and function of any new data items that are added to our workflows. To make the most of all data available, workflows need to evolve. To accommodate and exploit the majority of established workflows, it is necessary to completely rethink them.AllThe data for this field, Reservoir Type (RRT), and Reservoir Rock Types (RRT), are available. Data Hierarchy is the foundation for how to rank and characterise new data. This topic is addressed in detail in the IPRC, IPCFR, and other Petrophysics Consultant. Is it a Passive "Comparison With" or an Active “Calibrate To”? What criteria does an experienced petrophysicist use to determine reservoir Data Hierarchy? This is the process of ranking data according to its usefulness. The petrophysicist suggested that Accuracy, Directness, and Spatial Definition are the key criteria we look for. How can we navigate among competing data sets? How do experienced petrophysicists, engineers and geologists navigate through competing data sets? This is How You Analyze It! Log No Fluid Volume Think Data Hierarchy Is it really necessary to have FFV to solve for permeability? PETROPHYSICS does not require either a log of Free Fluid Volum (FFV), or Log Mean T2 in order to determine permeability. This is a benefit in log operations, as it eliminates the need for logs of FFV or Log Mean T2 with an NMR tool. For example, FFV cannot be easily obtained in gas zones. Logging is often slowed to an inefficient crawl because the assumption that all the T2 spectrum must be logged in order to get useful NMR results is false. This is not true. Bound Fluid Volume (BFV), is the fastest and easiest log you can obtain using an NMR tool. It is typically 100% water and rapidly polarizes, which is quickly counted in T2 time. The PPL method, in both clastics or non-vuggy carbonates, achieves a strong and precise permeability. Service companies might be aware of the possibilities, but it is often not in their best interests to pursue such an approach. The job of service companies is to create logs and data, not to assess your reservoir. Many wells can be accurately rated for permeability by using NMR data. So, get your "Interested Petrophysicist" to start working on this one.

2. Elan, Multimin and Mineral Solver. Probabilistic or deterministic Petrophysics? "It is important to note that log analyses that are over-determined and error-minimizing (probabilistic), may seem appealing. However, they must prove that discontinuous core data was actually correctly extrapolated beyond core. This is not just a matter of matching over core. They must demonstrate the mechanism(s) that the cored answers are locked in the log analysis model applied beyond the core. This will prevent them from exploitation the more expensive core data and defeat the petrophysical goal of coring. Probabilistic petrophysics is less able to show the rigid extension of core data into non-cored intervals than deterministic petrophysics. This is why simple deterministic methods continue to be used despite superior log analysis techniques. This author intends to emphasize that field petrophysics is not log-based but core-based. The petrophysicist who is interested may consider using a multi-well multiple linear regression of the same curves (portmlr), which provides a better fit to core, but lower overall porosity. Because the MLR process loses the fixed point zero porosity and pordn2sc (density neutral shale corrected porocity) is scaled to an unfeasible value (*0.374), core porosity has a limited range. The pordn2sc factor must be less than 1. We know that pordn2sc must be *1.00! The 'interested petrophysicist may also want to know how the Elan/Multimin approach integrates these hard data.