MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Porosity and permeability prediction from wireline logs using artificial neural networks: a North Sea case study

2001· article· en· W1980046581 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Prospecting · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPorosityGeologyWirelinePermeability (electromagnetism)Well loggingPetrophysicsArtificial neural networkPetroleum reservoirDrillingSoil scienceMineralogyPetrologyPetroleum engineeringGeotechnical engineeringArtificial intelligenceMaterials scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.358
Threshold uncertainty score0.744

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it