"Do they have to publish that?"
Of course not. It's not really material or considered "Hard" data. (Even though it can be fantastically informative to those who truly understand its deep meaning.)
They have much more definitive cartoons that they can publish - ones derived from the 150 some sidewall core samples, the 7m full hole core that was cut and the derived petrophysical analyses interpreted from the raw wireline open hole log data.
The trouble is - there is a reason they are not publishing that information. A very profound and logical reason.
But - the masses are hungry for something - they need something beguiling and bewitching - they need another stage show vaudeville act or magic show. And what better than to put out colourful Geobabble cartoons and Hymn Sheets that look fantastic - but which less than 0.0001% of the population has any effing clue what it actually all means? Back up the Geo Fantasmograms with the traditional deference to trusted experts and authorities and Voila! You have your illusion show with all the props, the dry ice, the pretty assistants and the clouds of nice white pigeons...
Do they have to publish all that? No. But they wanted to publish all that - and nothing else if they can avoid doing so.
GS (But forgive me for pulling back the curtain once more and perhaps spoiling the illusion.)