Talk:Well logging

message: The Logging Measurement Types section seems too specialized and leaves out the basic logging measurements of resistivity, gamma-ray, density, neutron, etc. Should we clean this up and sub-divide the current section into perhaps specialty measurements?
--Claygate 04:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

message: The authors of this article have forgotten the fundamentals.  For one thing, they assume that geophysical well logs are the only kind that exist.  Well logging did not start with Conrad Schlumberger.  In fact, well loggingis nothing more than making a record (a log) of the formations being drilled through.  Drillers were making geological well logs since the early days of the Pennsylvania oil industry, and even today it is standard practice to make a geological log (in the oil business called a mud log.  Plazak 13:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then please add a history section and expand this. --Claygate 15:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your edits, point well taken. --Claygate 04:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of well log

message: I was reading through this, and the phrasing in this section seems to be rather clunky. I edited it minorly (to get rid of a passive statement in the first sentence that did not make sense), but I don't want to go through and rephrase things too much without permisssion.  
"However, because there is no high bandwidth telemetry path available — no wires to the surface — data are recorded downhole and retrieved when the drill string is removed from the hole. In addition, a small subset of the the measured data is usually transmitted to the surface in real time via pressure pulses in the well's mud fluid column. This mud telemetry method provides a bandwidth of much less than 100 bits per second. Fortunately, drilling through rock is a fairly slow process and data compression techniques mean that this is an ample bandwidth for real-time delivery of critical information."
IMO, I think it would sound better as follows:
However, because there are to wires to the surface, data are recorded downhole and retrieved when the drill string is removed from the hole. A small subset of the measured data can also be transmitted to the surface in real time via pressure pulses in the well's mud fluid colum. This mud telemetry method provides a bandwidth of much less than 100 bits per second, although, as drilling through rock is a fairly slow process, data compression techniques mean that this is an ample bandwidth for real-time delivery of information.Alison Troup (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: sounds fine to me... TastyCakes (talk) 15:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wireline and "While Drilling" well logging

message: 12:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge Mudlogger into Mud logging, but keep Mud logging separate from this article.  Mudlogging is enough of its own specialty to merit an article separate from Well logging. Plazak (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree.  "Well logging" is something of an umbrella term, and I  believe each type of well logging is notable to have its own article, as is the case now.  Some of the articles could stand to be fleshed out though.  TastyCakes (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Someone should add core-barrel coring as a type of logging, for historical purposes, even if it is a dying and seldom used technique these days. As well as shotgun cores taken from wireline logging. I think detailing the differences and advantages/disadvantages of each should be done also, such as: Electric logs do not actually identify formation types, rather they make assumptions to what the formations are based on parameters of what the average readings would be for sand and shale. Whereas mud logging, because samples are actually obtained and visually/chemically analyzed, can identify the actual formations. This can be of use when correlating to offset wells for formations such as lime. As well as formations such as anhydrite which can cause problems with the mud system. Mudgineer (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add coring, differences of each, advantages/disadvantages 

message: I'm all for merging with the first two, not sure about formation evaluation.  So I'm going to go ahead and vote:
 Strong Support for the first two and weak support for the third. TastyCakes (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From reading the introduction to each of them, I find them rather similar and thus mergeable. Do you mean that one or both of the articles don't reflect your perception of what the articles should contain? If so, it would be appreciated if you could elaborate. --Berland (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would definitely merge all together, then split off articles on different tools (SP, gamma, neutron, density, mud logging, etc.), with summaries and links in the main article.  Plazak (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of them already have articles of their own...  TastyCakes (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

text: See WP:MERGE --claygate (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Negative support Formation evaluation is something going far from the the "simple" well logging and wireline is just an aspect of well logging. The actual perception is due to the fact that, at present,  these articles are still  covering a small portion of the subjects.--Bramfab 07:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Negative support Electric WIreline is only 1 aspect of the techniques used for formation evaluation. Generally the techniques used for FE are spead across many technology and conveyance systems. These conveyance systems and Physics of the measurements are changing and improving all the time. Wireline is gradually being replaced by other conveyance techniques.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.212.211 (talk) 07:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: merging with wireline logging, electric line and formation evaluation

message: I'm going to try and reorganise this article to make it more readable and complement formation evaluation.  There's a lot of good information here but I think it needs some re-organising and I am very open for discussion on how to do this.  Reading the previous comments, I am currently proposing that this article summarises the tools used in formation evaluation, with links to the appropriate pages, as follows:
:1.Introduction
:2.Wireline Logging
::Introduction
::History (??)
::Electrical Logs
:::Resistivity
:::Image Log
::Porosity Logs
:::Density
:::Neutron Porosity
:::Sonic
::Lithology Logs
:::Gamma Ray
:::Self/Spontaneous Potential
::Miscellaneous
:::Caliper
:::NMR - Maybe put in porosity log section
::Logging-while-drilling? (Or Perhaps a new section for this?)
:3.Coring
:4.Mud Logging
There are a whole load of other wireline logs to include, but we have to start somewhere!
Nwhit (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganising this article 

message: Please add links to articles about companies who do this activity  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysong263 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  companies involved 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Well logging. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090227163708/http://www.accessmylibrary.com:80/coms2/summary_0286-7442038_ITM to http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-7442038_ITM
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Well logging. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111011073101/http://www.halliburton.com/ps/default.aspx?navid=1831&pageid=1141&prodgrpid=PRG%3a%3aJCFUH1E8Z to http://www.halliburton.com/ps/default.aspx?navid=1831&pageid=1141&prodgrpid=PRG%3a%3aJCFUH1E8Z
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)