MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3165879180 · doi:10.1016/j.aiig.2021.04.001

The benefits and dangers of using artificial intelligence in petrophysics

2021· article· en· W3165879180 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueArtificial Intelligence in Geosciences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsPetro-Canada
FundersBaker Hughes
KeywordsPetrophysicsArtificial intelligencePsychologyComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial Intelligence, or AI, is a method of data analysis that learns from data, identify patterns and makes predictions with the minimal human intervention. AI is bringing many benefits to petrophysical evaluation. Using case studies, this paper describes several successful applications. The future of AI has even more potential. However, if used carelessly there are potentially grave consequences. A complex Middle East Carbonate field needed a bespoke shaly water saturation equation. AI was used to ‘evolve’ an ideal equation, together with field specific saturation and cementation exponents. One UKCS gas field had an ‘oil problem’. Here, AI was used to unlock the hidden fluid information in the NMR T1 and T2 spectra and successfully differentiate oil and gas zones in real time. A North Sea field with 30 wells had shear velocity data (Vs) in only 4 wells. Vs was required for reservoir modelling and well bore stability prediction. AI was used to predict Vs in all 30 wells. Incorporating high vertical resolution data, the Vs predictions were even better than the recorded logs. As it is not economic to take core data on every well, AI is used to discover the relationships between logs, core, litho-facies and permeability in multi-dimensional data space. As a consequence, all wells in a field were populated with these data to build a robust reservoir model. In addition, the AI predicted data upscaled correctly unlike many conventional techniques. AI gives impressive results when automatically log quality controlling (LQC) and repairing electrical logs for bad hole and sections of missing data. AI doesn’t require prior knowledge of the petrophysical response equations and is self-calibrating. There are no parameters to pick or cross-plots to make. There is very little user intervention and AI avoids the problem of ‘garbage in, garbage out’ (GIGO), by ignoring noise and outliers. AI programs work with an unlimited number of electrical logs, core and gas chromatography data; and don’t ‘fall-over’ if some of those inputs are missing. AI programs currently being developed include ones where their machine code evolves using similar rules used by life’s DNA code. These AI programs pose considerable dangers far beyond the oil industry as described in this paper. A ‘risk assessment’ is essential on all AI programs so that all hazards and risk factors, that could cause harm, are identified and mitigated.

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)0.001
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 score0.204
Threshold uncertainty score0.472

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.250 · 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