Where have you deployed your QLog technology?
In many of the unconventional plays in the US Land market. In addition, we have experience in Alaska, GOM, Offshore Canada, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Australia, Malaysia, Norway.
If my logs are of poor quality, does QES have the ability to clean them up?
If competent EDR, Gamma and mud logs are available the answer is yes. QES is able to build logs from these data sets and provide infill logs where there are gaps.
How do you measure quality in your predictions of synthetic logs and calculate your errors?
Typically, we use Mean Squared Error or Normalized RMSE. But we can use whatever measure our customers are comfortable with, e.g., R2.
In many plays the Gamma Ray and Thrubit logs often simply mimic one another so how much additional information does the EDR data really add?
This really depends on the nature of the basin. If Gamma is highly correlated to Den/Son, then of course your statement would be true. If the attributes are not correlated, then we see results where combining GR with EDR clearly generates better results than either alone. We generally see that GR with EDR presents a higher quality prediction across all intervals, whereas GR alone may work in some but not in all lithologies.
Are there any data inputs that are different than typically used, e.g., ROP?
QLog uses any properties that are logged or measurements that are made in the wellbore. ROP, ROR, WOB, SPP, TOB, Temp, Caliper are all typically used as training data.
Is the Qlog data good enough to tie to rock physics models? Is there an example?
The DTC, DTS and RHOB simulations are often within a few percent of the measured data so if the measured data fit a rock physics model then so will the simulated data. However, it should be pointed out that since this is a completely data-driven process and if the trained dataset is sufficiently robust, the outputs may prove to be more reliable than a rock physics model.