1887
24th International Geophysical Conference and Exhibition – Geophysics and Geology Together for Discovery
  • ISSN: 2202-0586
  • E-ISSN:

Abstract

Wireline logs are a supplemental data source to conventional core logging. The recent explosion of machine learning algorithms has provided researchers with ample opportunity to develop automated statistical tools for classifying lithology from wireline logs, which geologists can use to produce first-pass interpretations or to validate existing interpretations. Such automated interpretations can be particularly valuable information in the case of missing or damaged core samples. There exists, however, a need to evaluate said machine learning algorithms in the case where available wireline logs contain a wide range of different logs which are highly-sampled.

This paper explores different machine learning algorithms and architectures for lithology classification using wireline data from project area Jundah East, 60 km north-west of Wandoan, Queensland, which is well known for coal mineralisation. We used seven well logs each containing 19 wireline logs sampled at 1 cm-1, available through the Queensland Digital Exploration (QDEX) data system. Three popular supervised machine learners, namely the Naive Bayes classifier, Support Vector Machine, and Multilayer Perception (an artificial neural network), are tested under two architectures: committee (one classifier per well log) and singular (one classifier for all well logs). The results show the Naive Bayes classifier, although computationally simple, achieves good results in general when training using a committee architecture on a large data set. For coal classification in particular, it achieved the sensitivity score of 0.79 and the specificity score of 0.97. While the committee and singular architectures generated similar results, the committee architecture provides the benefits of faster computation time as well as a flexible platform for the training of additional well logs.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1071/ASEG2015ab208
2015-12-01
2026-01-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Al-Anazi, A., Gates, I.D., 2010. On the Capability of Support Vector Machines to Classify Lithology from Well Logs. Nat Resour Res 19, 125-139. doi:10.1007/s11053-010-9118-9
  2. Chang, C.-C., Lin, C.-J., 2011. LIBSVM: A library for support vector machines. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology 2, 27:1 -27:27.
  3. Chang, H., Kopaska-Merkel, D.C., Chen, H.-C., Durrans, S.R., 2000. Lithofacies identification using multiple adaptive resonance theory neural networks and group decision expert system.Computers & Geosciences 26, 591-601. doi: 10.1016/S0098-3004(00)00010-8
  4. Chang, H.-C., Kopaska-Merkel, D.C., Chen, H.-C., 2002. Identification of lithofacies using Kohonen self-organizing maps.Computers & Geosciences 28, 223-229. doi: 10.1016/S0098-3004(01 )00067-X
  5. Dubois, M.K., Bohling, G.C., Chakrabarti, S., 2007.Comparison of four approaches to a rock facies classification problem.Computers & Geosciences 33, 599-617. doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2006.08.011
  6. Gifford, C.M., Agah, A., 2010. Collaborative multi-agent rock facies classification from wireline well log data. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 23, 1158-1172. doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2010.02.004
  7. Green, D.R., Chestnutt, C., Mackie, S., 2006. EPC791 Juandah East, Queensland: Relinquishment report for period ending 24th February 2006 (QDEX No. 42776). Queensland Digital Exploration Reports (QDEX).
  8. Halevy, A., Norvig, P., Pereira, F., 2009. The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Data. IEEE Intelligent Systems 24, 8-12. doi:10.1109/MIS.2009.36
  9. Hall, M., Frank, E., Holmes, G., Pfahringer, B., Reutemann, P., Witten, I.H., 2009. The WEKA data mining software: an update. ACM SIGKDD explorations newsletter 11, 10-18.
  10. Hsieh, B.-Z., Lewis, C., Lin, Z.-S., 2005. Lithology identification of aquifers from geophysical well logs and fuzzy logic analysis: Shui-Lin Area, Taiwan.Computers & Geosciences 31, 263-275. doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2004.07.004
  11. Li, Y., Anderson-Sprecher, R., 2006. Facies identification from well logs: A comparison of discriminant analysis and naive Bayes classifier. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 53, 149-157. doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2006.06.001
  12. Qi, L., Carr, T.R., 2006. Neural network prediction of carbonate lithofacies from well logs, Big Bow and Sand Arroyo Creek fields, Southwest Kansas.Computers & Geosciences, Computer Simulation of natural phenomena for Hazard Assessment Computer Simulation of natural phenomena for Hazard Assessment 32, 947-964. doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2005.10.020
  13. Wang, G., Carr, T.R., 2012a. Marcellus Shale Lithofacies Prediction by Multiclass Neural Network Classification in the Appalachian Basin. Math Geosci 44, 975-1004. doi:10.1007/s11004-012-9421-6
  14. Wang, G., Carr, T.R., 2012b. Methodology of organic-rich shale lithofacies identification and prediction: A case study from Marcellus Shale in the Appalachian basin.Computers & Geosciences 49, 151-163. doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2012.07.011
/content/journals/10.1071/ASEG2015ab208
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error