Machine Learning for Petrophysical Modelling: A Case Study of Groningen Gas Field, the Netherlands

References

1. Bourne, S.J., Oates, S. J., van Elk, J. and Doornhof, D. [2014]. A seismological model for earthquakes induced by fluid extraction from a subsurface reservoir.Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 119, 8991–9015.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Bhattacharya, S. [2021]. Automated detection of bad borehole sections and evaluation of log quality using Toeplitz Inverse Covariance-based Clustering.SEG/AAPG/SEPM First International Meeting for Applied Geoscience & Energy, 1–5.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Daly, C. [2020]. Tight integration of decision forests into geostatistical modelling. 1st EAGE Digitalization Conference and Exhibition, 2020. 1–5.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Daly, C. [2022]. Scenario Modelling using the EMBER Algorithm.EAGE Workshop on Innovative Reservoir Modelling into Digital Proliferation, 2022. 1–3.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Daly, C., Hardy, M. and McNamara, K. [2021]. Leveraging machine learning for enhanced geostatistical modelling of reservoir properties. 82nd EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition, 2021. 1–5.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Degterev, A., Topchii, M. and Bondarev, A. [2023]. Improvement Possibilities for the Open Geological Model of the Groningen Field. SPE Reservoir Characterisation and Simulation Conference and Exhibition, 1–22.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Dempsey, D. and Suckale, J. [2017]. Physics-based forecasting of induced seismicity at Groningen gas field, the Netherlands.Geophysical Research Letters, 44, 7773–7782.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Durrett, R. [2019]. Probability: Theory and examples. Cambridge University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Glennie, K.W. [1972]. Permian Rotliegendes of Northwest Europe interpreted in light of modern desert sedimentation studies.AAPG Bulletin, 56, 1048–1071.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Ismagilov, N., Popova, O. and Trushin, A. [2019]. Effectiveness Study of the Spectral Approach to Geostatistical Simulation. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 2019. 1–12.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Lafferty, J., McCallum, A. and Pereira, F.C.N. [2001]. Conditional random fields: Probabilistic models for segmenting and labeling sequence data. 18th International Conference on Machine Learning, 2001. 282–289.
    [Google Scholar]
12. NAM [2020]. Petrel geological model of the Groningen gas field, the Netherlands. Open access through EPOS-NL. Yoda data publication platform Utrecht University. https://doi.org/10.24416/UU01-1QH0MW.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Perez, R. [2023]. Using 3D CNN Fault Segmentation to Improve Structural Knowledge in Groningen Field. 84th EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition, 1–5.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Vallabhaneni, S., Saraf, R. and Priyadarshy, S. [2019]. Machine-Learning-Based Petrophysical Property Modelling. SPE Europec featured at 81st EAGE Conference and Exhibition, 2019. 1–7.
    [Google Scholar]
15. van Thienen-Visser, K., and Breunese, J. N. [2015]. Induced seismicity of the Groningen gas field: history and recent developments.The Leading Edge, 34, 664–671.
    [Google Scholar]
16. van Wijhe, D.H., Lutz, M. and Kaasschieter, J.P.H. [1980]. The Rotliegend in the Netherlands and its gas accumulations. Geologie en Mijnbouw, 59, 3–24.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Xiao, W., and Leigh, T. [2022]. Quantitatively evaluate a machine learning algorithm for petrophysical modeling. 2nd EAGE Digitalization Conference and Exhibition, 2022. 1–5.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Yasin, Q., Sohail, M.G., Khalid, P., Baklouti, S. and Du, Q. [2021]. Application of machine learning tool to predict the porosity of clastic depositional system, Indus Basin, Pakistan.Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 197, 1–20.
    [Google Scholar]