Porosity and permeability prediction from wireline logs using artificial neural networks: a North Sea case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimations of porosity and permeability from well logs are important yet difficult tasks encountered in geophysical formation evaluation and reservoir engineering. Motivated by recent results of artificial neural network (ANN) modelling offshore eastern Canada, we have developed neural nets for converting well logs in the North Sea to porosity and permeability. We use two separate back‐propagation ANNs (BP‐ANNs) to model porosity and permeability. The porosity ANN is a simple three‐layer network using sonic, density and resistivity logs for input. The permeability ANN is slightly more complex with four inputs (density, gamma ray, neutron porosity and sonic) and more neurons in the hidden layer to account for the increased complexity in the relationships. The networks, initially developed for basin‐scale problems, perform sufficiently accurately to meet normal requirements in reservoir engineering when applied to Jurassic reservoirs in the Viking Graben area. The mean difference between the predicted porosity and helium porosity from core plugs is less than 0.01 fractional units. For the permeability network a mean difference of approximately 400 mD is mainly due to minor core‐log depth mismatch in the heterogeneous parts of the reservoir and lack of adequate overburden corrections to the core permeability. A major advantage is that no a priori knowledge of the rock material and pore fluids is required. Real‐time conversion based on measurements while drilling (MWD) is thus an obvious application.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".