See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/282663186

CURRENT STATUS OF WELL LOGGING DATA DELIVERABLES AND A VISION

FORWARD Philippe Theys,Thuy Roque, Monica Vik Constable, John Williams,
Martin Storey

Conference Paper · May 2014

CITATIONS READS
0 991

1 author:

Martin Storey
Well Data Quality Assurance
14 PUBLICATIONS   7 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Jan Cordonnier View project

Plasma Storage Ring View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Martin Storey on 09 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 SPWLA 55th Annual Logging Symposium, May 18-22, 2014
CURRENT STATUS OF WELL LOGGING DATA DELIVERABLES AND
A VISION FORWARD
Philippe Theys, Independent Consultant, Thuy Roque, Anadarko, Monica Vik Constable, Statoil,
John Williams, BP, Martin Storey, WellDataQA
Copyright 2014, held jointly by the Society of Petrophysicists and Well Log
Analysts (SPWLA) and the submitting authors.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPWLA 55th Annual Logging
Symposium held in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, May 18-22, 2014.
ABSTRACT
Twenty years ago, at the end of 1993, the SPWLA Data
Quality Topical Conference in London concluded on
three priorities for well logging data deliverables: 1/
Establish standards. 2/ Establish standards. 3/ Establish
standards. Since then, these priorities have become all
the more critical, for reasons that include the
deployment of numerous modern measurements, the
“data explosion,” the multiplicity of vintages, and the
creation of new logging companies.
In reality, the industry has walked resolutely in the
opposite direction since then, away from standards.
Well logging data today is delivered in many different
forms and with varying content. While most logging
companies claim that they adhere to recommended
practices RP 31 (header format) and RP 66 (digital
format), a quick perusal at data sets reveals that the
current delivery is a real lottery for the final data user:
many sets are incomplete for exploitation, while some
sets are huge and difficult to understand and manage.
This paper gives numerous examples of the current
situation and suggests a standard delivery that applies to
all form of well logging data, regardless of conveyance,
of well location in the world and of well condition. It
particularly addresses Logging While Drilling (LWD)
data that has often been, and continues to be, delivered
incompletely, inconsistently, and in the most reduced
and untraceable ways.
In addition, the paper evaluates the potential impact of
the standardization of well logging data deliverables.
Standards do not mean commoditization and do not
suppress innovation and competitiveness. However they
definitely improve usability of data and facilitate a
1
much-needed quality control. They are a prerequisite to
an efficient and valid log interpretation.
INTRODUCTION
The conventional interpretation process starts with
loading a depth-indexed well log digital file. So why
worry about standardization as, upon a superficial
scrutiny, these files look very similar, especially in
consideration of the fact that the auxiliary data they
contain is seldom looked at? Standardization is
important because the log data acquisition process
varies tremendously according to the logging company,
the geographical location, the logging engineer and the
local logging company management. Even for one oil
company using only one logging data supplier, the
successive deliverables can be very different. When two
different logging companies are involved, delivery
variations can be even more considerable. Log data
delivery is a lottery whereby some can get a lot of
valuable information while others get hardly anything
of long-term value.
In the past there have been several attempts to define
standards. The API RP 31 standard was introduced in
1948 and revised in 1967 [API, 1967]. Several excellent
papers, [Reedy, 1993] and [Hutchinson, 1994],
proposed critical practices to increase drastically the
value of logging data. In 1998, a short note on reporting
depth information was included in The Log Analyst
[Theys, 1998]. By and large, these recommendations
have been and remain disregarded or forgotten.
In the case of LWD data, the recorded information is
often incomplete and upon delivery it is often
misrepresented, as illustrated below.
Why is this alarming situation not recognized and
loudly decried? A main reason is that many of the oil
company’s initial uses of the information are broadly
qualitative (e.g., chronostratigraphic correlation
SPWLA 55th Annual Logging Symposium, May 18-22, 2014
between wells) and do not suffer significantly from data
inaccuracies. Another related reason is that these
largely qualitative uses of the data tend to happen
shortly after acquisition, while the more quantitative
uses, with more stringent requirements on data quality,
tend to take place much later. Examples of such uses
include the quantitative petrophysical characterization
of a reservoir, or a time-lapse study.
For companies that require accurate data with
reasonable and quantifiable uncertainties to support key
business decisions, well logging data as delivered today
is rarely fit-for-purpose. Particular situations when this
is clearly critical include: challenging interpretation
issues, the reinterpretation of vintage data, fluid
saturation management, enhanced recovery, unitization
and redetermination.
This paper discusses and illustrates the need for
standards and the challenges their deployment would
involve. Secondly it proposes two areas where these
standards should be applied, namely graphical delivery
and digital delivery. Examples focus on LWD data, and
the last section describes additional documentation
required specifically for such data.
INCREASED NEED FOR STANDARDS
Change of roles and responsibilities. Henri Doll held
70 patents and wrote seminal papers on log
interpretation (e.g., The S.P. Log: Theoretical Analysis
and Principles of Interpretation, [Doll, 1948]), but his
very early success was to perform the first well log in
1927. One of the best-known pictures of him was taken
in Baku while he is calibrating a logging tool. He could
make the best use of acquired data because he knew all
the details of the acquisition process. Until only
recently, many petrophysicists and log analysts had
been logging engineers earlier in their career. They
fully understood the limitations of the acquisition
process and optimized the interpretation accordingly.
Implicit acquisition information was inferred by the log
analysts through their past logging experience and
intimate knowledge of the technology.
Nowadays, data acquisition and exploitation are usually
done by different groups of people with little overlap
2
between their respective areas of training or experience.
Log interpretation is now mostly performed by people
without practical logging experience. Many
geoscientists use the data without having sufficient
information and therefore not accounting for the
shortcomings inherent to the logging acquisition
process, for instance when:
 LWD data is acquired with high rates of
penetration
 Density data is acquired with a measuring sub
that is not stabilized
 Enhanced-resolution processing data is
acquired in poor borehole conditions
 Log data is used without consideration for the
associated quality-control curves
 LWD depths are inaccurate, particularly when
used to estimate thicknesses.
Because of the significant evolution in roles,
responsibilities, training, and competencies in the
industry, acquisition deliverables must imperatively
contain a complete and correct record of the acquisition
to allow their valid exploitation, immediately as well as
in the future.
Demanding organizational and well conditions.
Delivery of quality data is even more critical now that
there is an increasing scrutiny on operating time and
significant challenges from the harsher borehole
environment we operate in - deeper, hotter, higher
pressure, and narrower pore pressure and fracture
pressure window.
An additional complication. Early logs had few curves
and included limited processing on delivery at the
wellsite. In contrast, today, data processing before
delivery at the wellsite has become common if not
systematic. Figure 1 represents the steps of the data
flow linking the measurements performed on the
formation (or casing, or anything on which
informations need to be collected) to the output that is
delivered to the data user. The figure is simplified as
the different steps in the data flow may not be
performed by all logging companies in the sequence
shown. For instance, corrections may be performed
before time-to-depth conversion.
 SPWLA 55th Annual Logging Symposium, May 18-22, 2014

Fig. 1 From a measurement of the formation to delivered information.

In any case, there is rarely a single correct way to run

the acquisition sequence, and how that is done can be
largely subjective (or in the worst case, left to default
settings of the software). A simple look at the figure
shows that the same formation may yield substantially
different output and deliverables. It is therefore
essential that all the decisions and selected options be
documented intelligibly in the deliverables, so these can
be taken into account during exploitation. Two
examples of such critical acquisition sequence options
are discussed next.

Difference in measurements. Different tool configu-

rations yield different measurements. Different sensors
(detector size and efficiency) yield different
measurements. A pad type NMR tool reads differently
from a mandrel type tool. A spectral sensor does not
read the same as a tool with global detectors.
Even for the apparently simple gamma ray
measurement, different tool configurations as shown in
Figure 2 yield different measurement values.
Fig. 2 Different gamma ray tools. Top left: one
detector, eccentered. Top right: three detectors,
symmetrical. Bottom left: bundle of 12 detectors,
symmetrical. Bottom right: a single detector, centered
in the middle of the drill collar. These different tools
are bound to yield different measurement values.

Difference in time-to-depth conversion. All measure-

ments are performed in the time domain. For wireline,
the indexation to depth is relatively simple, but for
LWD it can be very complicated as the motion of the
bit and of the BHA is generally neither smooth nor at
constant speed.
Logging companies do not have a common standard
method for LWD data time-to-depth conversion. The
conversion is a subjective process: different engineers
may select different curves over different intervals.
Hence, the time-to-depth conversion of the acquisition
data has the potential to yield significantly different sets
of deliverables.
One area particularly prone to subjectivity is the
handling of gaps (or overlaps) in the depth-based data
after time-to-depth conversion - whether the gap is due
to a recalibration of the depth-tracking hardware, a
retying to the driller's tally, a computer glitch or a
change in the rig-up. Some engineers may fill the gap
with an arbitrary value, others may just use some form
of interpolation, yet others may stretch or compress
data from the adjacent interval above or below.
In personal communications, some engineers recognize
that time-to-depth conversion is a time-consuming
chore that needs to be done in post-processing mode by
experts. A consequence of this acknowledgement is

3
SPWLA 55th Annual Logging Symposium, May 18-22, 2014

that the depth indexing of the data done at the wellsite

may frequently be inadequate.

One logging company combines the time-to-depth

conversion with signal processing in order to optimize
the precision of the measurement [Schneider, 1994].

Finally, another company explains that this conversion

is performed deterministically as illustrated in Figures 3
and 4, but the process is not simple.

Fig. 4 Complicated but fully deterministic time-to-

depth conversion. Note that the original 24
measurements (performed every 5 s) yield only six
different values A1 to A6 (for a nuclear tool) or L1 to
L6 for a resistivity tool over a 3.5 ft interval. For
details, consult [Theys, 1999].

Fig. 3 Attribution of measurements to depth intervals.

Time is on the horizontal axis. Depth is on the vertical
axis.
MISREPRESENTATION OF DATA
In addition to being incomplete and not conformant to
existing standards, data can be presented in ways that
may mislead the log interpreter. Some examples follow.
The illusion of regularly sampled data. Figure 5 shows
a partial listing from a LAS file of LWD gamma-ray-
density data. Quadrant densities and final density are
shown every 10 cm with up to 4 digits behind the
decimal point. Such data seems to suggest a set of
precise values sampled regularly. In fact, a look at
figure 6 indicates that at a rate of penetration of 80 to
90 m/h, only four to five samples per meter can be
obtained assuming that the data was acquired with the
minimum measuring time (sample period) that can
yield an acceptable density log precision.
For longer measuring times, the sampling rate per meter
would be even less. From no more than four samples
acquired per meter of wellbore, how is the logging
company capable of delivering a value every 10 cm?
Some explanations and documentation from the logging
company are in order.
The illusion of continuity. It has been seen that logging
companies don’t have a unique processing for a given
measurement. It is therefore highly unlikely that two
successive runs, particularly if performed by two
different logging companies as is the case in the
example next page (Figure 7), would meet at exactly
the same value, as they seem to do. The data must have
been nudged somehow so that the values match exactly
– which would have to be explicitly commented, at the
very least.
The presentation in Figure 8 showing a discontinuity
between runs better reflects reality than the nudging
observed on Figure 7.

4
 SPWLA 55th Annual Logging Symposium, May 18-22, 2014

Depth ROP Qdens1 Qdens2 Qdens3 Qdens4 Density Bit size Caliper Drho GRc
m m/h g/cm3 g/cm3 g/cm3 g/cm3 g/cm3 in in g/cm3 API
2502.0 81.3857 2.1597 2.1506 2.1709 2.1728 2.1594 8.5 8.6004 0.0635 62.3265
2502.1 85.1353 2.1562 2.1430 2.1636 2.1705 2.1554 8.5 8.6465 0.063 61.9269
2502.2 88.8849 2.1459 2.1474 2.1660 2.1656 2.1551 8.5 8.6465 0.0655 60.8635
2502.3 92.6345 2.1346 2.1606 2.1750 2.1603 2.1572 8.5 8.6465 0.0701 58.7918
2502.4 91.4808 2.1283 2.1726 2.1835 2.1570 2.1591 8.5 8.6234 0.0745 59.2365
2502.5 90.3271 2.1306 2.1736 2.1836 2.1575 2.1581 8.5 8.6004 0.0758 62.0729
2502.6 89.1733 2.1372 2.1655 2.1742 2.1614 2.1545 8.5 8.6004 0.0734 62.4981
2502.7 88.0196 2.1475 2.1558 2.1589 2.1687 2.1519 8.5 8.5543 0.0695 62.7434
2502.8 82.5069 2.1600 2.1509 2.1465 2.1764 2.1525 8.5 8.5543 0.0663 63.0336
2502.9 76.9942 2.1702 2.1531 2.1421 2.1824 2.1559 8.5 8.5543 0.0651 60.7639

Fig. 5 This typical data presentation from a LAS format deliverable is misleading. Firstly, the regular sampling
every 10 cm is significantly superior to the rate at which the formation was actually sampled; secondly, all logs are
presented with much more digits behind the decimal point than their respective precision. The caliper values are
produced with a simpler interpolation algorithm, and the successive repeated values, shaded here for emphasis,
betray the actual scarcity of the data.

Fig. 6 Link between data rates and rate of penetration.

It is challenging to have 10 samples per meter with a
Fig. 7 Exact match of a gamma ray curve between two
rate of penetration of 90 m/h. In red, a data rate of 8 s, a
runs. Two different logging companies have completed
reasonable value to obtain a quantitative formation
these two runs. The perfect match point is annotated.
density with a ROP of 90 m/h, corresponds to five
Note that there is no ROP curve for the deeper run.
samples per meter. Modified from [Lamont-Doherty
Earth Observatory, 2008].

5
SPWLA 55th Annual Logging Symposium, May 18-22, 2014
Fig. 8 A more realistic presentation.
The gamma ray scale (green curve) is such that there is
15 API per division. The difference between the last
value of the previous run and the first value of the next
run is 27 API.
WHO SHOULD DEFINE STANDARDS?
More generally, the confident use of log data requires a
clear, correct and complete record of all operational and
data generation details – which jointly may be called
the contextual information - to be available to the data
users, present and future.
This contextual information should be an integral part
of the acquisition record, similar to the “print” or
graphical presentation. Today’s situation is that most
graphical records are incomplete, misleading, and
sometimes incorrect.
Now that the need for more complete information and
clearer presentations is understood, it is necessary to
define who should develop standards for deliverables.
Intuitively the data users should be the first persons
involved in defining logging deliverables.
In fact, considering the complexity of the logging
environment and the complication of the systems that
bring data to the oil company, the onus is more on the
vendor side. The logging company must ensure that all
basic, auxiliary data and relevant contextual
information are delivered. The similarity with the
purchase of a car has often been used. The buyer does
6
not need to specify to the car manufacturer that a clutch
should be part of the car. This component is critical. So
the car company, that is the supplier, definitely needs to
make sure that this clutch is designed and present in the
car.
As mentioned in the introduction, standards have been
proposed and poorly followed. In particular, the 1993
RP31A proposed revision [Reedy, 8] clearly states “that
diagram of the logging instrument as it appears
downhole should be provided, and show dimensions,
physical measure points, and the placement of such
devices as centralizers and standoffs.” In addition, “for
each curve presented, the version and revision date of
all applicable software should be recorded. All variable
parameters (e.g., environmental corrections, assumed
lithologies and data filters) controlled by the logging
engineer should be recorded.” Any audit on recent
deliverables indicates that these standards are not
strictly followed by all logging companies.
Part of the problem is that the existing standards
already mentioned, while remaining fully relevant, have
become insufficient because they do not go into enough
details in relation to the acquisition of modern data,
including LWD data.
Some logging companies claim that oil companies do
not know what they want and often complain about
being overwhelmed by the delivery of too much data
they cannot understand. To this argument it should be
retorted that instead of delivering less data, logging
companies should provide more documentation that
would enable the use of large data sets. A “complete
data set” is a required deliverable, and if that results in a
large data set (e.g., with waveforms) so be it. If the data
users chose to throw most of it away, that is their
prerogative and the eventual consequences are their
responsibility.
GRAPHICAL STANDARDS
In this second decade of the 21st century, it seems out of
fashion to write about print, film or graphical
deliverables. Why are digital deliverables not
sufficient? They would be if an exact reproduction of
the graphical displays could be readily produced from
the data set. At the time of writing, this is not yet the
 SPWLA 55th Annual Logging Symposium, May 18-22, 2014
case. While graphical displays are largely subsets of
the digital data set, they frequently contain critical
information that is not available in the digital data files.
It is for this reason that the proposed standardization
starts with the graphical file.
The description of the components hereafter does not
replace the existing standard document RP31A [API,
1967] which any logging company entering the logging
business should be familiar with. The components of
the graphical file are listed in Figure 9. These
components come in addition to the main log, which is
always delivered.
- Header - Survey (deviation and
- Remarks Section azimuth data) Listing
- Job Chronology - Parameter Listings
- Depth Information - Parameter Change
Box - Calibration Info Box
- Tool Sketch - Repeat Passes
- Well Sketch - QC Log/QC plots
- Well Plot - LQC Stamp
Fig. 9 The 14 points
Header. The header is the oldest piece of auxiliary
information in a log and previous documents RP31 and
RP31A document it very well. It is important that it is
filled correctly, clearly and completely. Of most
importance is the information that is found on no other
records, e.g., the mud information, the maximum
recorded temperature, and the equipment identification
and parameters. It is noticeable that logging companies
seem to use empirical formulae to derive mud
properties instead of measuring them. When oil base
mud is involved, logging engineers tend not to dig any
further and do not fill the appropriate boxes. This needs
to be corrected. The well location is found elsewhere in
the oil company archives, but an effort should be made
to report it correctly on the header.
Remarks section. Remarks are essential and must be
used to document any nonstandard circumstances
regarding tool operation, log presentation, anomalies,
special requests, customer orders or authorizations that
change the standard operational procedures, and special
drilling fluid ingredients.
7
In the last ten years, this component has been more and
more neglected. Logging engineers know that filling
remarks means more time spent explaining anomalies
to oil companies. Oil companies dislike remarks
because they indicate that the job was less than optimal.
But truthful remarks could avoid wasteful work in the
future, so every effort, on both sides, should be made to
submit meaningful remarks. Remarks are a team effort
shared by logging and oil companies, and are best
written jointly by the loggers and the witnesses at the
wellsite. They can be captured as items for Lessons
Learned and be used for further training.
In particular, any annotation found on the main log or
repeat log should be repeated in the Remarks section
along with an indication of the depth at which the
annotation has been made.
Job chronology. The job chronology was successfully
introduced in the early 2000s in the North Sea. It is now
a common log component observed on every North Sea
job run for any oil company by any logging company.
Its use should be extended worldwide.
What is its rationale? Every logging job is different and
the sequence and nature of even minute events during
the acquisition may have a significant impact on the
evaluation and interpretation of the data.
The circumstances need to be reported by the logging
engineer in a chronology of the job. The valuable
information helps considerably the data user, especially
for cased hole logs and LWD logs. A well-documented
example is shown in Figure 10, next page.
Depth information box. Although depth is recognized as
a fundamental measurement, it is today clouded by
many questions that will not be discussed here (see
[Theys, 1999] and [Loermans et al. 1999] for a
discussion of wireline logging depth). In any case, the
depth measurement needs to be documented on the data
record itself. Depth sensors and related calibration are
to be reported.
Wireline: There are (at least) two possible methods to
measure depth: Magnetic marks or precision wheel.
Which method is used needs to be reported. Wireline
depth is traditionally corrected for stretch. The amount
SPWLA 55th Annual Logging Symposium, May 18-22, 2014

of stretch and the way it is derived also need to be position and dimensions of auxiliary equipment, such as
reported. knuckle joints, standoffs and eccentralizers must be
LWD: The amount of correction at drillpipe shown as they are essential to the acquisition and
connections needs to be reported. If another subsequent use of accurate information. The tool serial
organization is measuring depth, there should be full numbers are important to verify the match with
traceability to this third party. calibration data. It is also useful to have these numbers
to track rogue tools giving erroneous data.
Nov11th
01:30 Disconnect ABT from CDT string to check it In LWD, an accurate BHA sketch plays the same role.
alone
02:30 Start checking ABT
Well sketch. The well sketch is described in [Reedy,
03:00 Start ABS 49 base oil station logs
03:30 Start ABS 48 OBM station logs 1993]. It should include a description of the open hole
04:00 Do simulation logs with parameters as per sections and of the tubulars (casings and tubings) used
logging program in the well. The well sketch should represent the well at
05:00 Start checking ABS 173
the time when the logging data was acquired. When a
06:00 Finish checking ABS 173 ---> USE THIS AS
MAIN hole opener is used, the hole size changes depending on
06:10 Start checking Packer tool where the opener is and whether the data is acquired
06:45 Finish checking Packet tool while drilling, or reaming. These details should be
10:30 Finished calibrating tension device TD 1234
reported.
for 7-48 and 7-46 cables
11:30 Checked swivel head 567 with mega-ohm-
meter Well plots and deviation survey listing. Most wells
14:00 Operations and safety meeting with today are deviated. Directional data is almost always
contractors personnel onboard available and can be found in a separate data folder.
15:00 EFX125-GHT string ready for operational
check
Frequently the survey available at the time of producing
16:20 EFX125-GHT OK the print is not the “Definitive Survey” and this must be
16:55 Communication with onshore checked. OK. specified explicitly too. Considering that years after
17:20 Netsighter checked OK. logging, well data records have often a difficult time to
17:25 Announcement made to stop all hot work due
to gas in mud above 184
meet again, it is strongly suggested that this data is
20:00 Start checking backup EFX made an integral part of the log data file. Well plots
CANNOT CLOSE EFX caliper. Start (vertical and horizontal projections of the well
troubleshooting. trajectory) are particularly useful to warn the log
21:00 Restart surface system; Still cannot close EFX
caliper.
analyst when a large apparent dip correction needs to be
21:05 Check continuity and insulation on logging performed on deep resistivity logs.
head. Checks are OK, but EFX still fails.
21:30 Cable trim. EFX still fails Parameter listing and parameter changes. The
22:00 BTMS 3660/ BTMD 3683/ BTCC 3675
production of logging curves frequently requires
FAILED
22:15 Start checking backup CDT modules. extensive processing controlled by a large number of
…… options and parameters. The value of the log data is
greatly reduced unless these parameters are clearly
Fig. 10 Example of job chronology recorded and available to the log analyst. These
parameters answer the following questions:
When events relating to depth occurred during the data
acquisition operations, e.g., a problem with a heave  How much is the raw data filtered? Could thin
compensator, these must be clearly reported in the beds be hidden by the filtering process?
remarks section.  Which environmental corrections have been
performed? Which environmental parameters
Tool sketch. The tool sketch gives a visual display of were used to drive these corrections?
the combination of logging tools. The presence,  Which processing options were used?

8
 SPWLA 55th Annual Logging Symposium, May 18-22, 2014
If a parameter is changed during the logging run, there
should be a box to report the values and the depth of the
change.
Calibration box. Most measurements cannot be
considered accurate unless they have been calibrated. A
calibration record needs to be supplied by the logging
company even if the calibration is performed by a third
party. The logging company needs to provide
documentation stating the requirements of the
calibration area (for instance, it may be impossible to
perform a valid calibration in a metallic environment,
e.g., on an offshore rig) and the calibration frequency.
Post-acquisition calibrations have been shown to be
useful for LWD density-neutron logging. They help
detecting excessive wear. All logging companies are
encouraged to perform them.
Repeat passes. Repeat passes are particularly useful to
assess the precision of the measurement in situ. They
are absolutely required for formation evaluation logs
acquired with wireline. Repeat logging is also valuable
with LWD data, although such data is generally not
acquired during a dedicated pass, but instead
opportunistically, while reaming, cleaning hole, pulling
out or running in. Such LWD data is normally
delivered as part of the run-by-run data sets. Their
added value in LWD mode is not so obvious. They are
not an absolute requirement in this mode of conveyance
[Theys, 1994].
QC curves. Many curves (channels) of the raw data
have a Quality Control (QC) function. They are
essential to assess the quality of the data to be
exploited, as well as to reprocess the data at a later time
should this be needed or required. The first dedicated
quality curve introduced in the industry was the density
correction curve. It became so popular that its absence
from the log was quickly noticed by the log analyst.
The QSS and QLS curves of the Litho-Density tool
were widely used in the 1990s. Latest tools often have
color-coded quality control flags, and these must be
included in the deliverables.
When a new tool is designed, it often happens that not
all the environmental corrections are available. This is
the case of eccentricity and apparent dip effects on the
induction tools. These limitations can be overcome by
9
re-processing, but this is only possible if the raw curves
are available. It is therefore very important that all the
relevant raw data is delivered. In practice many of these
curves are often not provided to the customer, possibly
not even recorded by the logging company.
The overwhelming recommendation is that all raw
curves and all quality control curves should be
delivered to the oil company. This cannot be over-
emphasized. It must become mandatory and standard to
the extent that a data set delivered without the raw and
the quality control curves should be rejected outright.
As quality curves are unglamorous and often rather
esoteric, clever presentations, such as color-coded flags
should be designed by logging companies. An example
of such design can be found in reference [Barber,
1999].
LQC stamp. Most organizations manufacturing
complicated products include a quality stamp in their
delivery. The stamp indicates that the product has been
checked in a systematic manner. Figure 11 shows an
example of LQC stamp used by a directional
measurement company. The LQC should be confirmed
by a different person from the data producer, i.e., the
logging engineer, and should be signed. Today, the use
and inclusion of the LQC stamp are not widespread and
not consistent.
DIGITAL STANDARDS
Currently, the two most popular formats that deal with
log data are DLIS [API, 1996] and LAS [CWLS, 2009].
The two formats do not give any instruction on the
content. Logging companies may deliver a lot of data,
or very little as illustrated in Figure 12. For similar
measurements, company A delivers 15 channels,
company B, 289 channels. It is obvious that much less
data quality control, validation and reprocessing would
be possible with the data set supplied by company A.
Company B, though much more generous in terms of
delivery, is not consistent. For the same oil company, in
the same field and the same measurement, it would
deliver a different number of channels.
Logging companies often prefer to deliver the least
amount of digital data possible. They argue that oil
companies are often unable to handle the sheer
SPWLA 55th Annual Logging Symposium, May 18-22, 2014

Fig. 11 Example of LQC stamp

Logging corrections, in reality to perform better

company Measurement Sampling Channels interpretations.
A Spectral GR 6 in 5
Digital records contain time- or depth-indexed data
Dual laterolog 6 in 2
(channels or arrays), but also parameters. In addition,
Dual spaced
it is possible to add any contextual information. There
neutron 6 in 1
is no technical limitation to prevent a complete novel
Gamma ray 6 in 1
from being added to the digital file. Many logging
MicroSFL 6 in 1 companies use this capability to add parameter
Spectral density 6 in 5 listings, remarks and log chronologies to the file. But
Total 15 again, when it comes to non-depth-indexed data, the
data users are faced with a real lottery. They may get
B Triple combo 6 in 113
a lot, or hardly anything. In the absence of a standard
1 in 30
defining the required deliverables, some data sets
0.1 in 3 may be rich and others minimal. The onus is on the
0.2 in 5 oil company to verify that the data delivered is
2 in 138 complete.
Total 289
Critical components of the graphical file. Many log
B (well A) NMR 7.5 in 68
analysts do not look at graphical files. Therefore the
B (well B) NMR 7.5 in 81 digital file should contain any critical information
B (well A) Advanced neutron 6 in 65 that is shown on the graphical file, as illustrated in
B (well B) Advanced neutron 6 in 62 Figure 13.

Fig. 12 Comparison of the contents of digital files
delivered by two logging companies.
quantity of records. Nevertheless, this data is needed
to perform quality control, to eventually repair or
reprocess data sets, to improve environmental
Recommended deliverables. A single digital data file
per well is often delivered to oil companies. It is
called a composite file. This type of file offers a
number of shortcomings.

10
 SPWLA 55th Annual Logging Symposium, May 18-22, 2014

But additional information is required for a complete

package of LWD data.

Tick marks. In a previous section, it has been shown

that sparse data can be interpolated to be shown as data
sampled every 10 cm or 6 in, thus giving a warm
feeling to the log analysts that they have plenty of data.

One graphical presentation reduces the confusion. A

tick mark is shown whenever a measurement is actually
performed. Tick marks should be associated to any
important curve. For instance, there should be tick
marks for the gamma ray curve, another series of tick
marks for the density curve, etc.

Fig. 13 Example of critical information available on a

graphical file. This information needs to be also
included in the digital file. Top: Critical annotation.
Bottom: Important remark on a calibration tail.

It does not include individual run parameters. A DLIS

record, for instance, allows only one single value for a
given parameter per data file. So when environmental
parameters, tool numbers, calibration coefficients are
changing (as they generally do when several runs are
involved), a DLIS file would only keep a record of the
last value of the parameter, that is to say, the value the
parameter took during the last run. If the log analysts
want to fine tune the environmental corrections, they
will be unable to find the values for runs before the last. Fig. 14: Tick marks shown in the depth track indicate a
variable data density. Between 623 ft and 610 ft, there
Consequently the recommended deliverable is a folder are only four data points. Between 656 ft and 638 ft,
containing a separate complete file (with raw data and there are six data points. Observe the plateau on the
QC curves) for each run and each pass. The composite gamma ray curve.
file is optional but oft-requested, and it may contain
only a selection of curves rather than the complete set. Recording rate or memory acquisition rate. This is the
This is acceptable. The composite file is a derived duration of a single sensor measurement before any
service, not the raw data product. processing. Literature mentions numbers from 5 s to 60
s, but this number is seldom reported. It is required, for
ADDITIONAL REPORTING FOR LWD
each sensor and each measurement, to estimate the
precision and resolution of the measurement.
Previous recommendations apply to all types of logs,
including open-hole, cased-hole wireline, and LWD.

11
SPWLA 55th Annual Logging Symposium, May 18-22, 2014
Update rate. This number is sometimes mentioned in
the literature, from 11 to 100 s, but is never reported on
a log. It is the rate in time at which real-time data is
sent uphole. Considering the bottlenecking imposed by
a mud-pulse transmission, this rate is much lower than
the memory acquisition rate. It also varies with the
capacity of the downhole memory, expressed in hours
of acquisition.
Maximum rate of penetration. At a high rate of
penetration, it is impossible to obtain data at a rate of
two samples/ft or a sample every 10 cm. Knowing the
maximum rate of penetration for a given sample rate (2
sample/ft or 1 sample every 10 cm) would be extremely
useful for the interpreter. This number can be computed
once the memory and transmission settings have been
selected, before the actual logging. That number must
be communicated to the drillers before the operations,
to ensure that data of adequate sampling is acquired –
particularly in the sections of most interest.
Information on gaps. Due to the irregular motion of the
BHA and of the logging sensors, and to incidents with
depth such as retying, recalibration or a computer
glitch, it may happen that no measurement is performed
in a given depth interval. This could also take place on
successive intervals. At which point is the logging
company making it obvious that there are gaps? One
company does report this information (see Figure 15)
and it should be reported by all. In any instance, the
raw data, prior to any interpolation, should also be
delivered.
Fig. 15 Information on gaps and interpolation
Real Time (RT) versus Recorded Mode (RM) data.
During operations, many decisions are taken on the
basis of the available Real Time LWD data. Later, the
Recorded Mode data becomes available. Later yet, an
end-of-well package may include an updated set of RM
data, with slightly different curve values and depths. It
12
is essential to include in the end-of-well package the
original RT data (with values and depths as received in
“real time”) to capture exactly what data was available
when operational decisions were taken.
Summary table. Several of the above requirements can
be summarized in a table proposed in 1994
[Hutchinson, 1994] but that has not yet been
implemented by any logging company (Figure 16).
AAA BBB
Memory acquisition time
Update rate
max ROP (2 - samples/ft)
Fig. 16 Summary table for LWD acquisition para-
meters. AAA, BBB each represent a different
measurement.
This table is a strict minimum and it is recommended
to collect the following additional information:
 Number of time frames per depth sample in
real time , for each relevant channel
 Number of time frames per depth sample in
recorded mode processing, for each relevant
channel.
These channels can easily be included in the delivered
LAS file [Flaum, 2014]. This is all the more important
for information recorded with long measurement
sequences (e.g., NMR).
CONCLUSIONS
Establishing standards is a challenging endeavor. A
new standard means change and most would prefer to
keep their old ways. Adapting to a new standard
requires special efforts in training, implementation and
control. But the payoff is important. Implementing and
adhering to standards means less miscommunication,
fewer errors, and higher confidence. Standards-
compliant data is higher value data which benefits the
individual data user in the short term, and the entire
industry in the longer term.
 SPWLA 55th Annual Logging Symposium, May 18-22, 2014
One important benefit of standardization is an easier
data quality control. Today, logging data is delivered in
so many different formats that it is very difficult to train
people to recognize quality issues. For instance, every
logging company has different methods to present
calibrations and it is not easy to detect non-conforming
records.
REFERENCES
API RP31A, 1967, Standard form for hardcopy of
downhole well log data.
API RP 66, 1996, Recommended practices for
exploration and production data digital interchange
Barber, T., et al., 1999, Real-time open hole evaluation,
Oilfield review, summer edition.
Canadian Well Logging Society, 2009, Floppy disk
committee, log ASCII standard.
Doll, H., 1948, The S.P. log: theoretical analysis and
principles of interpretation.
Flaum, C., 2014, personal communication
Hutchinson, M., 1994, Log quality assurance of
formation evaluation measurement while drilling
data, SPWLA 35th annual logging symposium, June
19-22.
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, 2008, Seminar in
Marine Geophysics (www.ldeo.columbia.edu).
Loermans, T., Kimminau, S., Bolt, H., 1999, On the
quest for depth, 40th SPWLA annual logging
symposium, Oslo, Norway.
Reedy, G. K.., API recommended practice for
resistivity and other electromagnetic logs, Paper X,
SPWLA, 34th annual symposium, 1993.
Schneider, D. M., Hutchinson, M., Deady, R., 1994,
Processing and quality assurance of unevenly
sampled nuclear data recorded while drilling.
SPWLA 35th annual Logging Symposium, June 19-
22.
Theys, P., 1994, A serious look at repeat sections.
SPWLA 35th annual logging symposium, June 19-
22.
Theys, P., 1998, Le log column in The Log Analyst.
Report on the Taos data quality topical conference.
Theys, P., 1999, Log data acquisition and quality
control, Editions Technip.
13
The recommendations in this document are public and
non-proprietary. Exceptions to the standards are not
encouraged, but they are possible. An oil company may
decide to waive a requirement (for example, not
requiring a well plot or a directional survey) but this
should be clearly agreed with the data supplier. In all
cases, rigorous requirements need to be set before the
logging jobs.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Philippe Theys graduated from Ecole Centrale de
Paris, has written several dozens of papers and short
notes and is the author of two books, Log Data
Acquisition and Quality Control and Quest for Quality
Data. He consults for oil companies. In his spare time,
Philippe travels (187 countries to-date), and writes non-
technical books.
Thuy Rocque is Director of Petrophysical Technology
for Anadarko Petroleum Corporation. In her current
role, she leads a large team of petrophysicists providing
global formation evaluation support to all exploration
and development projects. Thuy has been in the
petroleum industry for 29 years working as both a
petroleum engineer and a petrophysicist in various
international and domestic assignments. Thuy began
her career as a petroleum engineer working the large oil
& gas fields in East Texas. Eventually, she transitioned
to being a petrophysicist as she discovered the powerful
combination of integrating engineering & geoscience
information. Prior to joining Anadarko, Thuy was with
ARCO, Pennzoil, Miller & Lents, and Kerr-McGee.
 SPWLA 55th Annual Logging Symposium, May 18-22, 2014
Thuy has a Bachelor of Science degree in Petroleum
Engineering from the University of Texas at Austin.
Thuy is active in the petroleum industry especially the
petrophysical community where she has held several
Society of Petrophysicists and Well Log Analysts
(SPWLA) Board positions including Houston Chapter
VP’s, Regional Directors, and VP of Membership,
Finance, and Administration. Thuy is also active within
Anadarko helping recruit and guide staff career
development by serving on the Talent Review
Committee, Technical Recruiting Committee, and co-
founded a Petrotech Women Resource Group. She has
also represented Anadarko and the energy industry in
Washington DC to inform Senate & Congressional
leaders & staffers about the roles of women in oil &
gas.
Monica Vik Constable is a Leading Advisor in
Petrophysical Operations in Statoil. She started her
career in the oilfield service industry in 1997 after
receiving her MSc degree in Chemistry at the
Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
After six years working as a wireline field engineer for
Schlumberger in the UK, Holland and the US, she
started working as a Petrophysicist for Schlumberger
Data and Consulting Services in 2003. In 2005, Monica
joined Statoil as a Senior Petrophysicist working on the
Kristin field; she subsequently went on to work in
several other Statoil assets as a Principal Petrophysicist.
Monica took on her current position as a Leading
Advisor in Petrophysics in Statoil in 2009.
14
View publication stats
John Williams is a graduate of Imperial College
London and is Senior Petrophysics Advisor in the BP
New Well Delivery function. The wide ranging aspects
of data and their acquisition consumes much of his
time, but worth it as data are one the industry’s most
valuable assets. He is a former Regional Director of the
SPWLA.
Martin Storey started in the oil and gas industry as a
logging engineer in South America some 25 years ago,
worked in Gabon as a wellsite petroleum engineer,
petrophysicist and Total Quality Management
champion. An assignment in Brunei as a petrophysicist
and petrophysical technology planner followed. In both
Gabon and Brunei, he implemented a large well data
management solution. Since 1998, he has been an
independent consultant and a trainer based in Western
Australia. His areas of interest include operations,
practical petrophysics, auditability and quality. He
holds a BSc in Mathematics and computer science from
Stanford University and an MSc in electrical
engineering from the California Institute of Technology
(USA).