1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Geophysical Prospecting
  4. Volume 63, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 63, Issue 3
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

In this study, a locally linear model tree algorithm was used to optimize a neuro‐fuzzy model for prediction of effective porosity from seismic attributes in one of Iranian oil fields located southwest of Iran. Valid identification of effective porosity distribution in fractured carbonate reservoirs is extremely essential for reservoir characterization. These high‐accuracy predictions facilitate efficient exploration and management of oil and gas resources.

The multi‐attribute stepwise linear regression method was used to select five out of 26 seismic attributes one by one. These attributes introduced into the neuro‐fuzzy model to predict effective porosity. The neuro‐fuzzy model with seven locally linear models resulted in the lowest validation error. Moreover, a blind test was carried out at the location of two wells that were used neither in training nor validation. The results obtained from the validation and blind test of the model confirmed the ability of the proposed algorithm in predicting the effective porosity. In the end, the performance of this neuro‐fuzzy model was compared with two regular neural networks of a multi‐layer perceptron and a radial basis function, and the results show that a locally linear neuro‐fuzzy model trained by a locally linear model tree algorithm resulted in more accurate porosity prediction than standard neural networks, particularly in the case where irregularities increase in the data set. The production data have been also used to verify the reliability of the porosity model. The porosity sections through the two wells demonstrate that the porosity model conforms to the production rate of wells.

Comparison of the locally linear neuro‐fuzzy model performance on different wells indicates that there is a distinct discrepancy in the performance of this model compared with the other techniques. This discrepancy in the performance is a function of the correlation between the model inputs and output. In the case where the strength of the relationship between seismic attributes and effective porosity decreases, the neuro‐fuzzy model results in more accurate prediction than regular neural networks, whereas the neuro‐fuzzy model has a close performance to neural networks if there is a strong relationship between seismic attributes and effective porosity.

The effective porosity map, presented as the output of the method, shows a high‐porosity area in the centre of zone 2 of the Ilam reservoir. Furthermore, there is an extensive high‐porosity area in zone 4 of Sarvak that extends from the centre to the east of the reservoir.

Copyright © 2015 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers © 2015 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12212
2015-01-06
2024-04-25

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12212
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AndersonJ.K.1996. Limitations of seismic inversion for porosity and pore fluid: lessons from chalk reservoir characterization and exploration. 66th SEG annual international meeting, Expanded Abstracts, 309–312.
  2. BoomheadD.S. and LoweD.1988. Multivariable functional interpolation and adaptive networks. Complex Systems2, 321–355.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. BoschM., CamposC. and FernándezE.2009. Seismic inversion using a geostatistical, petrophysical, and acoustic model. The Leading Edge28, 690–696.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. BoschM., MukerjiT. and GonzalezE.F.2010. Seismic inversion for reservoir properties combining statistical rock physics and geostatistics: a review. Geophysics75, A165–A176.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. BulandA. and OmreH.2003. Bayesian linearized AVO inversion. Geophysics8, 185–198.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. DoyenP.M.1988. Porosity from seismic data—A geostatistical approach. Geophysics53, 1263–1275.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. DraperN.R. and SmithH.1966. Applied Regression Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 0471221708.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. DuijndamA.J.W.1988a. Bayesian estimation in seismic inversion—Part I: principles. Geophysical Prospecting36, 878–898.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. DuijndamA.J.W.1988b. Bayesian estimation in seismic inversion—Part II: uncertainty analysis. Geophysical Prospecting36, 899–918.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. FrancisA.1997. Acoustic impedance inversion pitfalls and some fuzzy analysis. The Leading Edge16, 275–278.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. FreemanJ.A.S. and SaadD.1995. Learning and generalization in radial basis function networks. Neural Computation7, 1000–1020.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. GholipourA., LucasC., AraabiB.N., MirmomeniM. and ShafieeM.2007. Extracting the main patterns of natural time series for longterm neuro fuzzy prediction. Neural Computing and Applications16, 383–393.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. GranaD. and Della RossaE.2010. Probabilistic petrophysical‐properties estimation integrating statistical rock physics with seismic inversion. Geophysics75, O21–O37.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. HampsonD., SchuelkeJ. and QuireinJ.2001. Use of multiattribute transforms to predict log properties from seismic data. Geophysics66, 220–236.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. HaykinS.1994. Neural Networks: A Comprehensive Foundation. Macmillan College Publishing Company. ISBN 0132265567.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. IlkhchiA.K., RezaeeM. and MoallemiS.A.2006. A fuzzy logic approach for estimation of permeability and rock type from conventional well log data: an example from the Kangan reservoir in the Iran offshore gas field. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering3, 356–369.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. KendallM.1938. A new measure of rank correlation. Biometrika30, 81–89.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. LindsethR.O.1979. Synthetic sonic logs—A process for stratigraphic interpretation. Geophysics44, 3–26.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. LiuZ. and LiuJ.1998. Seismic‐controlled nonlinear extrapolation of well parameters using neural networks. Geophysics63, 2035–2041.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. McCormackM. D.1991. Neural computing in geophysics. The Leading Edge10, 11–15.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. NellesO.1999. Nonlinear system identification with local linear neuro‐fuzzy models. PhD thesis, Technical University of Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. NellesO.2001. Nonlinear System Identification. Springer Press. ISBN 3540673695.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. OlatunjiS.O., SelamatA. and AbdulraheemA.2011. Modeling the permeability of carbonate reservoir using type‐2 fuzzy logic systems. Computers in Industry62, 147–163.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. PramanikA.G., SinghV., VigR., SrivastavaA.K. and TiwaryD.N.2004. Estimation of effective porosity using geostatistics and multiattribute transforms: A case study. Geophysics69, 352–372.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. RonenS., SchultzP.S., HattoriM. and CorbettC.1994. Seismic guided estimation of log properties, Part 2: Using artificial neural networks for nonlinear attribute calibration. The Leading Edge13, 674–678.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. RumelhartD.E., HintonG.E. and WilliamsR.J.1986. Learning internal representations by error propagation. In: Parallel Distributed Processing, Vol. 1, Ch. 8 (eds D.E.Rumelhart and J.L.McClelland ). MIT press. ISBN 026268053X.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. SchultzP.S., RonenS., HattoriM. and CorbettC.1994a. Seismic guided estimation of log properties, Part 1: A data‐driven interpretation technology. The Leading Edge13, 305–315.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. SchultzP.S., RonenS., HattoriM., MantranP. and CorbettC.1994b. Seismic guided estimation of log properties, Part 3: A controlled study. The Leading Edge13, 770–776.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. TakagiT. and SugenoM.1985. Fuzzy identification of systems and its application to modeling and control. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics15, 116–132.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Vasheghani FarahaniM.R., Nabi‐BidhendiM., KhoshdelH. and TorabiS.2009. Applying neuro‐fuzzy model to predict reservoir properties from seismic attributes – A case study in an oil field in Iran. 71st EAGE Conference and Exhibition, Extended Abstract.
  31. ZadehL.A.1965. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control8, 338–353.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12212
Loading
Prediction of effective porosity from seismic attributes using locally linear model tree algorithm
Geophysical Prospecting 63, 680 (2015); https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12212
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12212
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12212
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Effective porosity; Locally linear model tree algorithm; Neuro‐fuzzy model; Reservoir geophysics; Reservoir parameter estimation

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

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