1887

Abstract

Summary

The study was performed to check the possibility of automatic recognition of lithological units of shale complex and testing their heterogeneity in different parts of the Baltic Basin. For this purpose, two separate neural network models have been trained based on geophysical logs datasets: one for perspective units recognition, and second for tuffite interbeds detection. Obtained results have compared with units distinguished by sedimentologists in continuous core profiles. The performance of trained networks has been checked for two boreholes B-7 and B-1 not included in the training process. In case of the borehole B-7, the units predicted by the model match well to those distinguished manually in borehole core. In contrary, the score of model performance for the B-1 borehole was unsatisfactory. Significant differences in the lithological profile of this borehole were also recognized by sedimentologists. Due to the location of borehole B-1 in the marginal part of the basin, most of the properties of the studied units differ relevantly from recognized in other investigated boreholes. The performance of the network trained for tuffite interbeds detection is considered satisfactory. The results imply that the trained models might be applied in the boreholes where the core profiles are modest or non-existent.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201902195
2019-09-02
2024-04-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Gifford, C. M., and AgahA. [2010] Collaborative multi-agent rock facies classification from wireline well log data. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 23, 1158–1172.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Haykin, S. [2009] Neural Networks and Learning Machines. Pearson Prentice Hall. New Jersey.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Hunter, J. D. [2007] Matplotlib: A 2D Graphics Environment, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90–95.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. McKinney, W., [2010]. Data Structures for Statistical Computing in Python, Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, 51–56.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Passey, Q. R., Creaney, S., KullaJ. B., MorettiF. J. and StroudJ. D. [1990] A practical model for organic richness from porosity and resistivity logs. AAPG Bulleti., 74(12), 1777–1794.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Prettenhofer, P., Weiss, R., Dubourg, V., Vanderplas, J., Passos, A., Cournapeau, D., Brucher, M., Perrot, M., Duchesnay, E., [2011] Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825–2830.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Podhalanska, T., Waksmundzka, M. I., Becker, A. and Roszkowska-ReminJ. [2016] Rozpoznanie stref perspektywicznych wystepowania niekonwencjonalnych zloz weglowodorow w Polsce - nowe wyniki oraz dalsze kierunki badan. Przeglqd Geologiczny, 64(12), 953–962.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Qi, L., and Carr, T. R., [2006] Neural network prediction of carbonate lithofacies from well logs, Big Bow and Sand Arroyo Creek fields, Southwest Kansas. Computers & Geoscience. 32, 947–964.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201902195
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201902195
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