MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123279136 · doi:10.2118/201459-ms

Deep-Learning-Based Automated Stratigraphic Correlation

2020· article· en· W3123279136 on OpenAlexaff
Yury S. Tokpanov, Johanna Smith, Zheren Ma, Lichi Deng, Wassim Benhallam, Amir Masoud Salehi, Xiang Zhai, Hamed Darabi, David Castiñeira

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceProbabilistic logicWorkflowArtificial intelligenceRecurrent neural networkField (mathematics)Pairwise comparisonSequence (biology)Deep learningConvolutional neural networkData miningMachine learningArtificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Stratigraphic correlation is essential in field evaluation as it provides the necessary tops to compartmentalize the reservoir. It further contributes to other parts of the field development planning cycle such as reservoir modeling, volumetric assessment, production allocation, etc. Traditional approach of manual pairwise correlation is labor-intensive and time-consuming. This research presents a novel automated stratigraphic correlator to create well top and zonation interpretations using supervised machine learning algorithms of Convolutional- and Recurrent-Neural-Networks (CNNs and RNNs). An automated stratigraphic correlator is created that enables stratigraphic well top and zonation interpretations learned from the well logs of a subset of wells with zonation information manually provided by human experts. The method can efficiently learn the patterns and hidden information from the well logs’ sequential data, implicitly capture the domain expertise, and streamline and automate the traditional manual repetitive work. Our method supersedes existing approaches like Multiple Sequence Alignment (MSA) by incorporating domain expertise through tops/zones picked by geologists. A Bidirectional Long Short-Term Memory (BiLSTM) is used to interpret the log data, since deposition by nature is a sequential process and RNNs can intrinsically capture such series. An Inception autoencoder CNN is also applied in this workflow for stratigraphic interpretation. Reliable post-processing is also included using the predicted zone probability logs to quantify the overall confidence score of well zonation, and to correct misinterpretation when necessary using transition frequencies in log data through a linear chain graphical probabilistic model. The methodology is tested on one of the major Middle East oilfields with around 1,500 wells to prove its efficiency and capability. The overall methodology involves data pre-processing, deep learning model training and prediction, and the post-processing of model-predicted results. In this specific workflow, the machine learning targets include both the prediction of zones (multi-class classification/segmentation problem) and the prediction of well tops (edge-detection problem). Thus, a supervised multi-task learning on a single field using CNNs and RNNs is implemented to be able to perform different tasks with the same model. The inputs to the training module include trajectory logs and other measured logs such as gamma-ray, resistivity, neutron density, etc. All inputs are normalized to zero mean and unit standard deviation. For wells with missing log values, the approach can either discard it or perform data imputation to reconstruct the data using different automated algorithms. The machine learning engine uses two different algorithms (BiLSTM and Inception autoencoder CNN), with many other deep learning models tested. The training loss function includes zone categorical cross entropy loss, tops edge detection binary cross entropy loss and L2-norm regularization term. The learning rate is dynamically adjusted during training so that it is reduced when the loss is stalled. The post-processing uses the machine learning predicted zone probability logs to select the zoning sequence that maximizes overall zonation probability and treats it as the confidence score of well zonation. This dramatically helps in constraining the outcome stratigraphic interpretation by geological succession and minimizing the correlation error. The entire workflow has been applied to one major Middle East oilfield with a large number of pre-interpreted well logs, with 60% of the wells used to train the deep learning models, 20% used for validation and the rest are for blind test. Both BiLSTM and Inception autoencoder CNN show close to human-level performance in the blind test dataset. The mean absolute error of well tops interpretation after post-processing is around 3 m throughout all analyzed wells, which provided an accuracy of nearly 90% for the blind test dataset. The classification precision and accuracy also demonstrate close-to-human-level performance in the major zones with sufficient data. It has been noticed that for cases without missing data, Inception autoencoder CNN achieves best performance, while BiLSTM benefits a lot from imputation when missing data exists. The methodology automates and streamlines the originally time-consuming stratigraphic correlation process. It performs better than existing approaches through a well-developed machine learning framework with comprehensive data pre- and post-processing. The resulting stratigraphic correlation proves to be extremely reliable even with a small number of seed wells, and it requires minimal user intervention during the process. Through deep learning techniques such as transfer learning, the proposed methodology can be readily applied to other fields even with limited training data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Annual Technical Conference and ExhibitionSame topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207