Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download PPT - Energistics
Document related concepts
no text concepts found
Transcript
Lithology Reference Standards Paul Maton (POSC) and Gary Masters (POSC) Outline • • • • • • • Introduction Business Drivers Use cases Resources Current status Future requirements Conclusions Motivation and Background • WITSML Mud Log revision – Lithology classification sought to enhance mud log data transfers • Shell proposal for revised Lithological classification widely endorsed by DSS SIG members in June 2004 • Need exists for lithological terminology in Web consistent form Business Drivers • Operator Point of View – Standard vocabulary and semantics for lithologies will improve the following processes • • • • Assimilating results of outsourced work Information exchanges with partners, regulators Reduction of ambiguity and uncertainty in data Common nomenclature used for mudlog, core and other rock sample descriptions • Service Company Point of View – Enable use of same nomenclature and classifications in services and software for many customers • Cost savings in software engineering and maintenance • Cost savings and consistency in information produced Use Cases • Mudlog – Rapid wellsite description of rock cuttings. • Core analysis – Full description of petrographic and quantitative properties (porosity, permeability, density, etc.) • Detailed Petrographic analysis – Optical and electron microscopy analysis Objectives and Requirements • Provide evolving dictionary in XML of lithological terminology for use in: – end-2004 WITSML Version 1.3 Mudlog specification – revised lithological classification, 2Q05 – next WITSML Mudlog version 1.3.1, late 2005? • Improve or simplify existing specification(s) • Easy maintenance and extensibility Available Resources • Landmark Graphics – List of Lithology Classes with Qualifiers and Symbol Codes • Norwegian Petroleum Directorate – Reporting requirements for Digital Well Data: Lithological Codes • Shell – 1995 Standard Legend • Statoil – Current Listing of Lithological codes Common Descriptors • Primary and secondary lithologies • Use of the following characteristics as qualifiers •Mineral content •Fossil content •Cement •Grain size •Sorting •…~ 10 others Lithology types in WITSML Mudlog v1.3 Andesite Coal Granite Anhydrite Conglomerate Gravel Arkose Diabase Greenstones Basalt Diorite Greywacke Breccia Dolerite Gumbo Calcarenite Dolomite Gypsum Calcilutite Dolomite, Calcareous Halite Calcisiltite Extrusive Rock (Volcanic) Igneous Chalk Chert Clay Claystone Feldspar Gabbro Glauconite Gneiss Intrusvie Rock (Plutonic) Lignite Limestone Limestone, Argillaceous Lithology types in WITSML Mudlog v1.3 Limestone, Dolomitic Quartzite Syenite Limestone, Sandy Rhyolite Tillite (Diamictite) Marble Salt Trachyte Marl Sand Tuff Metamorphic Rocks Sandstone Ultrabasic Mudstone Schist No Description Serpentine No Sample Shale Ophiolites Silicilyte Peat Silt Phosphate Siltstone Potassium and Magnesium Salts Slate Qualifiers in WITSML Mudlog v1.3 Anhydrite Chalky Dolomitic Argillaceous Chamosite Feldspar Barite Chert Ferruginous/Illite Belemnitic Chlorite Fissile Bioturbated Concretions Forams gen Bituminous Conglomeratic Fossil Frags Bryozoans Conglomeritic Fossils gen Burrowed Coral Glauconite Calcareous Crinoids Glauconitic Calcite concr Diatoms Gravelly Calcitic Dolomite concr Gypsiferous Carbonaceous Dolomite Stringer Halite Qualifiers in WITSML Mudlog v1.3 Kaolinite Pelletal Siderite Lignite Pellets Siderite concr Limestone stringer Peloidal Silty Lithic frags Phosphates Spicular Marly Plant Remains Stylolitic Mica Potassium salt Tuffaceous Microfossils Pyrite Tuffite No Description Quartz None Radiolaria Oolithic Salty Ostrocods Sandy Pebbly Shells Revised lithological classification • Seeking requirements from geologists • Probable approaches – Base on Shell ’95 standard legend – Add sedimentary rock types with names, abbreviations and adjectives – Add mineral types, names, abbreviations and adjectives – Provide descriptions of rock types – Possibly provide images of rocks as go-bys – Avoid over-complicaction WITSML Mudlog version 1.3.1 • Seeking requirements from geologists, and feedback from users of version 1.3.0 • Probable approaches – Base on Shell ’95, improve current lithology list – More sedimentary rock types with names, but test need for abbreviations and adjectives – More mineral types, names, but test need for abbreviations and adjectives – Keep specification simple, within bounds of observational capabilities Participant discussion • Comments and suggestions re:– – – – – Business case? Resources needed – expert reviewers Proposed approaches? Recommendations, Next steps? Any other aspects? Thank you for your attention More information from Paul Maton [email protected] Alan Doniger [email protected] Gary Masters [email protected] +44 1932 828794 +1 713 267 5124 +1 713 267 5111
Related documents