INTERPRETATION DE DIAGRAPHIES
- Semaine Intégrée
Professeur
Philippe RENAUD
Date d'intervention
Début
09/02/2019
Fin
09/06/2019
Cours
École
- Makerere University
Adresse
Ville
Pays
Nombre de demi-journées
9
Heures effectuées
36
Nombre d'étudiants
53
Personnes rencontrées
Godfrey Lukwago – TEP Uganda
Jean Yves PETIT – TEP Uganda
Charles GISAR – TEP Uganda (HSE Dpt)
Boris LAFEUILLE – TEP Uganda (HSE Dpt)
Michael OWOR – Senior Lecturer, Head of Geology & Petroleum Geology – Makerere University
Moyens pédagogiques
Booklet (408 p – Theory and Exercises)
Booklet (98 p) – Correction of Exercises
Impression générale
– Very good organization by TEP Uganda ( welcome, management of paper copies, HSE induction, booking Hotel, Cars + driver). Excellent coordination between TPA and the affiliate (many thanks to Ginette Omboudou for TPA and Godfrey Lukwago for TEP Uganda)
– Acceptable work conditions when the number of participants was equal or lower than 40. More difficulties to manage the group of students especially when the number was reaching a maxi of 53. Efficient air conditioning. Large screen for the display of the documents (using a connection between a laptop and a retro projector). An IT manager was present and available during the week.
– The list of the students supposed to attend the training sent to the subsidiary (Godfrey) a few days before was not at all the definitive one corresponding to the students really present during the session. The number of participants varying from one day to another one, we have decided with Godfrey to delay the certification that would prepared later on.
– For Bachelors +3, I was really expecting more basics well known by the students for the geology (New ventures, Prospect analysis, Mineralogy and chemistry, litho stratigraphy, Drilling, tools and principles, plays, main parameters of the plays, use of softwares, general principles and fundamentals of the oil industry). Skills were too much limited. Therefore I lost time to remind what was supposed well acquired and known. This time was supposed to be spend for a second main chapter corresponding to wells test analysis (Tools, acquisition by pipes and cables , principles and interpretation)
? 21 out of 50 (42%) failed to get the average. The well study case was really simple (determination of the rock typing, porosity, mean value, net of the well, determination of the fluids + identification of the contacts) was the most important part of the exam (maxi possible score was 12)
? 2 students of the 50 (4%) obtained a high score. This is a disappointing result but these 2 students understood the theory and were able to analyze a well quickly with good results, logical workflow and a coherent interpretation
Quid du futur ?
– The last day I got a short meeting with one responsible of the College of Natural Sciences » (Michael OWOR – Senior Lecturer / Head of Geology & Petroleum Studies Dpt). We briefly discussed on the week, the course and the organization. Beyond it, I think that it would be interesting to engage a fruitful conversation with him to define an action plan on how the training could be for everyone more fruitful
Questions posées par les étudiants
– The students did not ask a lot of questions, listening a great part of the time. Their participation to the exercises was correct mainly for the 3 cases studies that were the most important part of the (students worked by groups of 8 to 10 and the main results of the quick look interpretation of the wells were reported by 1 student of the group). More difficulties for me to maintain a correct pace of work from 2 to 4 pm (students I believe were less and less attentive and more tired). Overall warm ambiance in the classroom that means that the training was very nice for everyone.
