1887

Abstract

Summary

Recently we presented results of compilation and formation-level up-scaling of all triaxial electric resistivity data from exploration wells drilled at the Norwegian continental shelf available in DISKOS database. The purpose for that work was to analyze the formation electrical anisotropy using the results of direct measurements. The triaxial database was assembled and analysis demonstrated that subsurface is, and should be treated as mostly anisotropic, as far as the direct measurements are available. In particular, the median formation anisotropy was found to be around 2.5, and no formations were found to have anisotropy less than 1.25. In this work we extend the study by applying machine learning (ML), based (trained and tested) on the existing triaxial database. The triaxial database also got extended by recently published wells. We discuss some details of the ML-model. We confirm previously obtained results, strengthen the statistics, and make further observations. The anisotropy, as well as the vertical resistivity are surveyed, in particular, in controlled source electromagnetic (CSEM) imaging, and anomalies in relevant distributions commonly serve as direct hydrocarbon indicators. Thus, we also show comparison of the ML-prediction to the CSEM inversion results available to us. We further discuss the potential application of this ML-predictor.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201901610
2019-06-03
2024-04-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anderson, B., Clavaud, J., Nelson, R., Guru, K.U. and Wang, H
    . [2005] Field examples of enhanced hydrocarbon estimation in thinly laminated formation with a triaxial array induction tool: a laminated sand-shale analysis with anisotropic shale. Presented at the 46th Annual Logging Symposium, SPWLA.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bestagini, P., Lipari, V., and Tubaro, S
    . [2017] A machine learning approach to facies classification using well logs. SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts2017, 2137–2142.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Jaysaval, P., Shantsev, D.V, de la Kethulle de Ryhove, S. and Bratteland, T.
    [2016] Fully anisotropic 3-D EM modelling on a Lebedev grid with a multigrid pre-conditioner. Geophys. J. Int., 207, 1554–1572.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Larsen, E., Purves, S.J., Economou, D. and Alaei, B
    . [2018] Is Machine Learning taking productivity in petroleum geoscience on a Moore's Law trajectory?First Break, 36(12), 135–142.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Newman, G. A, Commer, M., CarazzoneJ. J.
    [2010] Imaging CSEM data in the presence of electrical anisotropy. Geophysics, 75, no. 2, F51–F61.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Wedberg, T., Stefatos, A., Vereshagin, A.
    [2017] Up scaling of triaxial resistivity data measured on the Norwegian Continental Shelf and observations relevant for CSEM imaging. Search and Discovery Article #90310, 2017AAPG/SEG Conference and Exhibition, London, England.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201901610
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201901610
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error