Practical Well-log Standards Phase 2 Houston 15 th 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@flare-consultants.com

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

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 recognized 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 Generalist Specialist 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 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 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 • Project Management • Steering Group • Technical Committee 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 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 END Agenda

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