Lithology Reference Standards

1
Lithology Reference Standards

• Paul Maton (POSC)and Gary Masters (POSC)

2
Outline

• Introduction
• Business Drivers
• Use cases
• Resources
• Current status
• Future requirements
• Conclusions

3
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

4
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

5
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

6
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

7
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

8
Common Descriptors

• Primary and secondary lithologies
• Use of the following characteristics as
  qualifiers

• Mineral content
• Fossil content
• Cement
• Grain size
• Sorting
• 10 others

9
Lithology types in WITSML Mudlog v1.3
Andesite Anhydrite Arkose Basalt Breccia Calcareni
te Calcilutite Calcisiltite Chalk Chert Clay Clays
tone
Coal Conglomerate Diabase Diorite Dolerite Dolomit
e Dolomite, Calcareous Extrusive Rock
(Volcanic) Feldspar Gabbro Glauconite Gneiss
Granite Gravel Greenstones Greywacke Gumbo Gypsum
Halite Igneous Intrusvie Rock (Plutonic) Lignite L
imestone Limestone, Argillaceous
10
Lithology types in WITSML Mudlog v1.3
Quartzite Rhyolite Salt Sand Sandstone Schist Serp
entine Shale Silicilyte Silt Siltstone Slate
Limestone, Dolomitic Limestone,
Sandy Marble Marl Metamorphic Rocks Mudstone No
Description No Sample Ophiolites Peat Phosphate Po
tassium and Magnesium Salts
Syenite Tillite (Diamictite) Trachyte Tuff Ultraba
sic
11
Qualifiers in WITSML Mudlog v1.3
Anhydrite Argillaceous Barite Belemnitic Bioturbat
ed Bituminous Bryozoans Burrowed Calcareous Calcit
e concr Calcitic Carbonaceous
Chalky Chamosite Chert Chlorite Concretions Conglo
meratic Conglomeritic Coral Crinoids Diatoms Dolom
ite concr Dolomite Stringer
Dolomitic Feldspar Ferruginous/Illite Fissile Fora
ms gen Fossil Frags Fossils gen Glauconite Glaucon
itic Gravelly Gypsiferous Halite
12
Qualifiers in WITSML Mudlog v1.3
Kaolinite Lignite Limestone stringer Lithic
frags Marly Mica Microfossils No
Description None Oolithic Ostrocods Pebbly
Pelletal Pellets Peloidal Phosphates Plant
Remains Potassium salt Pyrite Quartz Radiolaria Sa
lty Sandy Shells
Siderite Siderite concr Silty Spicular Stylolitic
Tuffaceous Tuffite
13
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

14
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

15
Participant discussion

• Comments and suggestions re-
• Business case?
• Resources needed expert reviewers
• Proposed approaches?
• Recommendations, Next steps?
• Any other aspects?

16
Thank you for your attention

• More information from
• Paul Maton maton_at_posc.org 44 1932 828794
• Alan Doniger doniger_at_posc.org 1 713 267 5124
• Gary Masters masters_at_posc.org 1 713 267 5111