[Auscope-geosciml] Borehole modeling

Boisvert, Eric Eric.Boisvert at RNCan-NRCan.gc.ca
Wed Sep 2 13:09:26 EDT 2009


> We tried hard typing first, then switched to soft typing. Which is better?

We missed the bit that points to a classification system, which is where those geologic unit comes from.

> 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.

Agree
 

-----Message d'origine-----
De : auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au [mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] De la part de Stephen M Richard
Envoyé : 2 septembre 2009 11:55
À : auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Cc : piotr.wojda at jrc.ec.europa.eu
Objet : Re: [Auscope-geosciml] Borehole modeling

Eric--
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.

steve



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

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

email: steve.richard at azgs.az.gov

_______________________________________________
Auscope-geosciml mailing list
Auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
http://lists.arcs.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/auscope-geosciml



More information about the GeoSciML mailing list