Generation of synthetic dielectric dispersion logs in organic-rich shale formations using neural-network models
Academic Article
Overview
Identity
Additional Document Info
Other
View All
Overview
abstract
Dielectric dispersion (DD) logs acquired in subsurface geologic formations generally are composed of conductivity ([Formula: see text]) and relative permittivity ([Formula: see text]) measurements at four discrete frequencies in the range of 10MHz to 1GHz. Acquisition of DD logs in subsurface formations is operationally challenging, and it requires a hard-to-deploy infrastructure. We developed three supervised neural-network-based predictive methods to process conventional, easy-to-acquire subsurface logs for generating the eight DD logs acquired at four frequencies. These predictive methods will improve reservoir characterization in the absence of a DD logging tool. The predictive methods are tested in three wells intersecting organic-rich shale formations of the Permian Basin and the Bakken Shale. The first method predicts the eight dispersion logs simultaneously using a single artificial neural network (ANN) model, whereas the second method simultaneously predicts the four conductivity dispersion logs using one ANN model, followed by simultaneous prediction of four permittivity dispersion logs using a second ANN model. The third method sequentially predicts the eight dispersion logs, one at a time using eight sequential ANN models, based on a predetermined ranking of the prediction accuracy for each of the eight DD logs when simultaneously generated. Considering that the conventional and DD logs are recorded more than 10,000ft deep in the subsurface using logging tools that are run at different times in rugose boreholes for sensing the near-wellbore geologic formation, the data used in this predictive work is prone to noise and biases that tend to adversely affect the prediction performances of the proposed methods. In terms of normalized root-mean square error (Nrms error), the prediction performances of the second predictive method are 8.5% worse and 6.2% better for the conductivity and permittivity dispersion logs, respectively, as compared with those of the first predictive method. The third method has best prediction performance for permittivity dispersion logs, which is 0.089 in terms of the Nrms error.
