[Auscope-geosciml] Borehole modeling

Stephen M Richard steve.richard at azgs.az.gov
Wed Sep 2 11:54:59 EDT 2009

It seems to me that boreholes (wikipedia has a good definition) in 
different roles have different properties of interest, and this is what 
needs to be captured in the model.  Information about drilling 
procedure, completion, associated sampling, kinds of logs, production 
from the borehole, ownership, and abandonment will be different for 
environmental monitoring or mitigation, mineral exploration, oil and gas 
exploration vs production, water production. Looking at the 
gsml:borehole model, it is apparent that it is oriented to mineral 
exploration. We have a 'coredInterval', but why not a 'sampledInterval' 
(cuttings instead of core, water samples, logged intervals...). The 
start point code doesn't include 'Kelly bushing', which is typically the 
start point for O&G wells. Simon's 'IntervalConstruction' would probably 
have other specializations for oil wells (reservoir enhancement 
processes, casing?) or environmental mitigation boreholes. 
option 1. Subtyping boreholes to associate them with these different 
property sets
option 2. soft type boreholes, and deal with the property sets as rules.

Its the same problem we have wrestled with on GeologicUnit. We tried 
hard typing first, then switched to soft typing. Which is better?

The view of a water well as a point source of water is useful from the 
point of view of someone managing a water production and distribution 
network, but that seems out of scope for geoscience models.


Boisvert, Eric wrote:
> Here the description we have
> An excavation where the intended use is for location, acquisition, development, or artificial recharge of ground water.
> http://water.nv.gov/WaterPlanning/dict-1/PDFs/wwords-w.pdf
> A water well is an excavation or structure created in the ground ? by digging, driving, boring or drilling to access water in underground aquifers. 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_well <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_well> 
> The whole discussion was more around "is water well a role or a thing ?". Boyan rule of thumb is "role can change" and considering that a borehole can stop being a water well, it might be a role.
> some element of the discussion came from the Australian groundwater model, see figure 3.1a and 3.1b - these are places you can draw water from
> http://www.brs.gov.au/land&water/groundwater/fundamental.html#2
> Now, if it's a role, and we can draw groundwater from several features, we came up with the model where a Water well is a point where groundwater is extracted from some other feature.
> The figure attached shows a WaterWell that has a relation (groundwaterAccessFeature) to any feature
> I think it's a case where we went too 'conceptual'.  While the model is conceptually right (maybe), it is not practical (If we have to explain it at length to people who are knowledgeable in both UML and geology, it must fail the laugh test)
> My intention (and it's Wednesday) is to revert to WaterWell as a subtype of Borehole.
> Eric
... clip off a bunch of previous discussion in thread.... smr

Stephen M. Richard
Section Chief, Geoinformatics
Arizona Geological Survey
416 W. Congress St., #100
Tucson, Arizona, 85701 USA

Office: (520) 209-4127
Reception: (520) 770-3500 
FAX: (520) 770-3505

email: steve.richard at azgs.az.gov

More information about the GeoSciML mailing list