RE: HAWK ver 1
Efremov Sergei
Okay, we will study this. Thank you.
Best regards,
Efremov Sergey
Smart Imaging Technologies Co.
From: Peter Jones [mailto:jones_...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 7:53 PM
To: s...@simagis.com
Subject: Re: HAWK ver 1
Hi Sergey,
TOC is not the same thing as THC. TOC is the "Total Organic Carbon" and is determined by summing the carbon from the FID during pyrolysis, with the carbon from the CO and CO2 curves during pyrolysis and the oxidation phase of the analysis. Is this supposed to be included is version 1? I know that David was having some difficulties with the instrument on some of this, but was not sure what would be included in the first phase of development. However, since the primary customers for the instrument in the short term will want the TOC calculation, I would think it is part of the version 1 scope.
In any case, I did send an email that addressed the subject of file exchange for the analyzed sample previously. It has the subject "issues."
This is what I previously wrote:
==============================================
While the export file may be an OK solution for importing data during our testing phase, I would like to get your idea of how the business workflow process will be affected. We currently run samples from the old POPI from Weatherford and the instrument automatically outputs a *.csv file for each sample that is available after each run. These can then be loaded efficiently into GC-ROX via the Dashboard in either the Expert or Technician version. In the technician version, they simply click on the link in the “LOAD SAMPLES” area of the Dashboard and then they can select to Load “from CSV files, Copy from Database, or Copy from filtered Database.” So, in this case, the file is automatically generated, the user interacts with GC-ROX from the cleanest interface, and the option is easy to select.
The way that I see things now, from the HAWK software, the user will first need to export the data and it is unclear how the individual will keep track of which samples have been exported and which samples have not been processed. After exporting samples, in GC-ROX, the user will need to first open the project navigator, go to the routine folder or wellbore (where to import to is also not clear and the program will allow you to import to the wrong place), import the samples by selecting “import from file,” and then make decisions about whether to import to same folder, whether to overwrite data, etc., and after this the user can presumably go to the dashboard and proceed normally.
However, this procedure as I see it is much more complicated, prone to user mistakes, and may be less efficient. For example, if you import the *.rox file at the project level, the program will then try to open ALL samples in the database when you try to open the routine folder. Also, if you simply export the whole folder of samples after each sample is run, then the process of overwriting will also probably cause the post-import processing to need to be re-run on ALL samples. If any adjustments were made, then they would be lost. If the operator is careful, then he may choose to only export new samples, but in GC-ROX, exporting specific samples is much harder than just exporting a whole folder or wellbore. And you will remember, one of the key features in GC-ROX was the way the software uses colors as cues to user about the status of samples. So, I am really worried about the inconvenience factor for someone carrying out this procedure hundreds of times over the course of one wellsite job. Moreover, wherever we end up on this, will be something we have to live with for some time until we move to the new software that we envision“ROXPlus,” which will be aimed at providing interpretive and modeling tools for all data streams; i.e., FID, CO, CO2, Sulfur, and Mass Ion Data.
We are hoping that the existence of the new equipment will allow the existing capabilities to be leveraged by Halliburton, as well as, by Wildcat (when they get a license,” so it is important to make the export of data process easy and clear and make the import process also clear and efficient for the user. They will hopefully be doing this for hundreds of samples at hundreds of wells. Perhaps the current export file structure does not need to change, but it would be better to have another option of an automatic file that is generated as each sample is run. Maybe this file could have a different file extension, like *.hwk, *.pop, etc. and the option in the Routine Folder can be added to select the “+” sign as normal and then select “load from pop file.” This would keep the operator loading data in the correct place and in a very clear business process. The other thing we’d want to do in this proposed solution is to eliminate the intermediate import interface that provides the source and source info. With this type of file, there would only be samples and the program would only allow you to load them from an open wellbore.
Please let me know what you think and whether we can, in addition to fixing the export module, look at the option optimizing the export/import business process.
==========================================
After re-reading this, it seems to cover the concerns that I have for the data exchange of samples to GC-ROX. I think that I did not mention that when importing the files from the HAWK, the data QC is not performed as well. So, it would then let our operators generate data from any sample without regard to if it is good or bad data.
I have attached a graphic of an imported HAWK sample from the detailed sample results interface. As you can see, import of the sample did not generated a value for many parameters, including: Tmin, TmaxTD, TmaxTC, Depth is not confirmed to import, Run parameters (initial temp, initial time, heating rate, final temperature, and final hold time are also not included.
Please let me know your thoughts and then we can go from there.
Best regards,
Pete
From: Efremov Sergei [mailto:s...@simagis.com]
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 2:08 PM
To: Jones, Peter J
Subject: RE: HAWK ver 1
Actually we calculate THC by determining the square under the FID curve. Does THC equal TOC or not?
As to the exchange procedure, could you tell me what kind of potential problems can it cause and what parameters do not go thru the procedure?
Best regards,
Efremov Sergey
Smart Imaging Technologies Co.
From: Jones, Peter J [mailto:peter...@aramco.com]
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 1:21 PM
To: Efremov Sergei
Subject: RE: HAWK ver 1
Hi Sergey,
This is good news. I think we have a lot of information that we need; however, I do need more specifics.
A very important aspect is the Total Organic Carbon determination. Is this now being calculated through the HAWK-eye software?
Also, I want to have a better file format and procedure for exporting results from the HAWK and then importing them into GC-ROX. The current way of doing this will lead to a lot of potential problems created by the operators in the field. In addition, it seems that some of the sample information/parameters are not coming into GC-ROX after import. It would be good to fix this before finalizing the HAWK v1.
If it would help, we can discuss via Skype.
Best regards,
Pete
From: Efremov Sergei [mailto:s...@simagis.com]
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 10:11 AM
To: Jones, Peter J; Jones_...@yahoo.com
Subject: HAWK ver 1
Hi Pete!
We are planning to finish HAWK Project on version 1 level. Tell me please is the work we have done here is enough for you to understand what should we have in GC-ROX Plus project, or you want something more from us to do?
Best regards,
Efremov Sergey
Smart Imaging Technologies Co.
The contents of this email, including all related responses, files and attachments transmitted with it (collectively referred to as “this Email”), are intended solely for the use of the individual/entity to whom/which they are addressed, and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. This Email may not be disclosed or forwarded to anyone else without authorization from the originator of this Email. If you have received this Email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies from your system. Please note that the views or opinions presented in this Email are those of the author and may not necessarily represent those of Saudi Aramco. The recipient should check this Email and any attachments for the presence of any viruses. Saudi Aramco accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus/error transmitted by this Email.
Efremov Sergei
We have discussed the issue with our guys. I think you are right worrying about potential problems while transferring data to GC-ROX.
What we can do is to use *.csv files for exporting data instead of *.rox files. This will give us a way of working just the same way you work with Weatherford instrument.
More that this we can generate *.csv files automatically after HAWK-Eye finish process them.
What do you think?
Efremov Sergei
From: Peter Jones [mailto:jones_...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 5:01 PM
To: Efremov Sergei
Cc: <hawk...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: HAWK ver 1
I think this is ideal for me, especially for the legacy data.
Sent from my iPhone
Efremov Sergei
Pete,
I think there is a problem here with TOC. Actually we don’t have TOC in GC-ROX at all, because we don’t have oxidation there. And in ROX we actually can hold only FID curve.
Best regards,
Efremov Sergey
Smart Imaging Technologies Co.
From: Peter Jones [mailto:jones_...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 5:01 PM
To: Efremov Sergei
Cc: <hawk...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: HAWK ver 1
I think this is ideal for me, especially for the legacy data.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 29, 2013, at 1:27 PM, "Efremov Sergei" <s...@simagis.com> wrote:
Efremov Sergei
Okay I see. For the moment we don’t have TOC in HAWK-Eye just because we don’t have “oxidation” samples from David. So after we have these examples we will have TOC value calculated.
Consult me please about CO /CO2 sensors. How do we get amount of carbon with them? I think the sensors “sense” not only carbon but carbon oxide. What does curve that we get from the tool give us? Or this is question more for David?
Best regards,
Efremov Sergey
Smart Imaging Technologies Co.
From: Peter Jones [mailto:jones_...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 12:27 PM
To: Efremov Sergei
Cc: <hawk...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: HAWK ver 1
Hi Sergey,
Yes, I know it is not in GC-ROX, I wanted to know if it is in the Hawk-eye software yet. We will need it in ROXPlus, alone with the ability to process other curves.
Best regards, Pete
Sent from my iPhone
Efremov Sergei
Hi Pete,
Our guys said that they have finished the work for next release and now we can do export to ROX via csv files.
The releases with number greater than 25_r1790 support this feature. So David now has this feature.
It would be great if you toghether with David try this.
Best regards,
Best regards,
Efremov Sergey
Smart Imaging Technologies Co.
From: Peter Jones [mailto:jones_...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 5:01 PM
To: Efremov Sergei
Cc: <hawk...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: HAWK ver 1
I think this is ideal for me, especially for the legacy data.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 29, 2013, at 1:27 PM, "Efremov Sergei" <s...@simagis.com> wrote:
Peter Jones
To: 'Peter Jones' <jones_...@yahoo.com>
Cc: hawk...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 11:32 AM
Efremov Sergei
Hi Pete,
I am glad to hear these news. We will correct the csv – file. Thank you for rapid answer.
Efremov Sergei
Maybe I have answered to quickly) I have some points to discuss.
First thing is that as I know, when you work with Weatherford instrument you get *.csv files with no baseline subtracted. No doubt that we can subtract baseline but wouldn’t it be confusing?
As to the calculated parameters, legacy *.csv files have only “acquisition” parameters inside and for the moment we don’t have the place to store calculated ones. Again we can add them but the thing is we will need to change GC-ROX soft to understand this new format.
Best regards,
Efremov Sergey
Smart Imaging Technologies Co.
From: Peter Jones [mailto:jones_...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 10:45 AM