- This tutorial is about selecting a suitable template for your core description. So, you can see that there's plenty of core behind me right now. There's many ways of doing this. A lot of companies use a template, like a standardized template, like this guy right here. And there's advantages and disadvantages to this. The advantage, of course, is the template is already made for you, so you don't really have to create one, you don't have to be creative. The other advantage is that if everyone in your company describes core like this, and you work for a company where everyone dresses up the same way, looks the same way, maybe they have their core description templates the same way. It's one of those companies that promotes that everyone does everything the same way. If you work for a company like that, they may not like you being creative and coming up with your own core description, there are companies like that. And if you work for one, you know what I'm talking about. I personally don't do this, I don't use templates that are already in place, and I'll tell you why. So let's take a look at this guy right here, okay? There's a lot of columns in here. Of course, this is where our description goes, and you could put grain sizes and everything on there. What I don't like is, I'm here describing sediment stone and there's a column here that says biologic constituents. Well, guess what, there's no shells in here. There's almost, maybe I'll see a little bit of shell hash, but this column is mainly for carbonates. But I'm not describing carbonates. But even if I were describing carbonates, this thing is not good enough, because it doesn't take a lot of those other things into account that I want to document if I'm describing carbonate core. Okay, for example, porosity types. There's no way, I mean this is sediment stone, it's most porosity is just inner granular, there's not a whole range of pore types that you have in carbonates. But if this was a carbonate, there's no way I can take a look at a core, and just by using core, I can't come up with the range or diversity of pore types that could be present in there. Okay, so I don't use these. What can you do, well, there's a range of different things, what I personally do, is I'm gonna walk along the core and I'm gonna see what grain sizes I have. I bring one of these with me, this is just normal graphing paper, okay? And I'll create some columns that I need. So I'll create one for grain sizes, and depending on what kind of grain sizes I have, so, for example, my grains, the coarsest grains I have in here are, is coarse sand, so my columns go from clay, silt, fine sand, medium sand, coarse sand, and that's it. I don't need a column for gravel, or even splitting that up into granules and pebbles. No need for that, okay? So when you, when you do it that way, you come up with something like this. Okay, so you can see I've got the date, that's important, I've got my name on there, so people know who the core analyst was, I've got the well name on there, the formation name, all the important pieces of information will go on there. If there's a core shift between the log depths and the core depths, I'm gonna note that on here as well. Okay, then I've got depths, I always put down my depths in meters, if I'm describing a core in the US and everything is in feet, well, I'm gonna have feet in there, but then I'll have a separate column for meters as well, okay? I've got my grain size divisions on there, in this particular core, gravel was the coarsest, so I've got a column for that, and then I've got a detailed description. The thing I didn't have in there that I should have done is creating another column for bioturbation index, but perhaps the reason I didn't do it for this particular core is because it wasn't very bioturbated, okay? And if there's no bioturbation, let's assume you're looking at a flurrial succession or an eolian deposit. And there is no bioturbation, if there's no bioturbation, you don't need a column for bioturbation index in there. Okay? So I like the flexibility that comes with doing this on your own, versus going with a standardized template such as this one. Once I've described the core on a piece of paper, I'll go home, and using Canvas or some other software product, I can go ahead and digitize everything, okay, and make it look nice and pretty. I can add different columns and colors and things like that. A lot of people these days are using software, so there's software packages out there, such as WellCAD, a lot of people like to use that, you can bring that directly into the core lab, and you're describing the core on your laptop. People like it because they claim that it's fairly seamless with pecker physical data, so everything's in one place. You could do it that way, but uh, the choice is yours. There is no right or wrong way. There's nothing wrong with doing it this way, using your own template. There's certainly nothing wrong with using your company's template. And if you're tech savvy, which I'm not, you could use something like WellCAD, and that would work just as well, okay? But no matter what you do, you don't want to leave out any details. That's the key, okay, if it's there, you make sure you document it.