Abstract

Mudstone reservoirs demand accurate information about subsurface lithofacies for field development and production. Normally, quantitative lithofacies modeling is performed using well logs data to identify subsurface lithofacies. Well logs data, recorded from these unconventional mudstone formations, are complex in nature. Therefore, identification of lithofacies, using conventional interpretation techniques, is a challenging task. Several data-driven machine learning models have been proposed in the literature to recognize mudstone lithofacies. Recently, heterogeneous ensemble methods (HEMs) have emerged as robust, more reliable and accurate intelligent techniques for solving pattern recognition problems. In this paper, two HEMs, namely voting and stacking, ensembles have been applied for the quantitative modeling of mudstone lithofacies using Kansas oil-field data. The prediction performance of HEMs is also compared with four state-of-the-art classifiers, namely support vector machine, multilayer perceptron, gradient boosting, and random forest. Moreover, the contribution of each well logs on the prediction performance of classifiers has been analyzed using the Relief algorithm. Further, validation curve and grid search techniques have also been applied to obtain valid search ranges and optimum values for HEM parameters. The comparison of the test results confirms the superiority of stacking ensemble over all the above-mentioned paradigms applied in the paper for lithofacies modeling. This research work is specially designed to evaluate worst- to best-case scenarios in lithofacies modeling. Prediction accuracy of individual facies has also been determined, and maximum overall prediction accuracy is obtained using stacking ensemble.

Highlights

  • Mudstones are widely occurring siliciclastic sedimentary rocks that behave as a source, cap and reservoir rock for hydrocarbon systems (Aplin and Macquaker 2011)

  • Accuracy = Total number of data samples where True Positive (TP) is a number of correctly classified data samples of target lithofacies, False Positive (FP) is a number of correctly classified data samples other than target lithofacies, and False Negative (FN) is the number of incorrectly recognized samples classified as target lithofacies

  • It may be possible that the presence of calcareous mud inside dolomitic packstone (DP) has confused base classifiers with carbonate mudstone (CM). This uncertainty may be removed by increasing the number of training data samples that will help in learning discriminating features between similar layers (Fig. 11)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Mudstones are widely occurring siliciclastic sedimentary rocks that behave as a source, cap and reservoir rock for hydrocarbon systems (Aplin and Macquaker 2011). Several machine learning models have been proposed to extract the facies information of conventional reservoir using well logs data. Machine learning paradigms utilized for quantitative lithofacies modeling of mudstone lithology are limited to unsupervised and supervised classifiers (Qi and Carr 2006; Ma 2011; Wang and Carr 2012; Anifowose et al 2015; Bhattacharya et al 2016). Wang and Carr (2012) applied discriminant analysis, ANN, support vector machine (SVM) and fuzzy logic techniques for lithofacies modeling of the Appalachian basin at USA They utilized core and seismic data along with well logs to develop a 3-D model of shale facies at the regional scale. Bhattacharya et al (2016) compared the performance of unsupervised and supervised machine learning models for mudstone facies present in Mahantango-Marcellus and Bakken Shale, USA.

Ensemble methods
Related works
Results and discussion
Conclusions
Voting Base classifiers
Stacking Base classifiers
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call