1887

Abstract

Summary

This study presents a hybrid machine learning workflow integrating Genetic Algorithms (GA) and Self-Organizing Maps (SOM) to improve seismic facies classification in carbonate reservoirs, characterized by geological complexity and heterogeneity. GA automates seismic horizon picking by optimizing waveform similarity, reducing manual input and enhancing accuracy. Seismic attributes, including instantaneous frequency, phase, Sobel filter, and spectral decomposition, are calculated between GA-defined horizons to focus on geologically meaningful zones. These attributes serve as inputs for SOM clustering, revealing depositional environments, lithological variations, and structural features. Validation with core and well log data ensures geological accuracy and enhances subsurface models. The workflow effectively delineated depositional patterns, identified facies transitions, and refined gross depositional environment maps, extending facies boundaries and providing actionable insights for hydrocarbon exploration and reservoir development. Despite its effectiveness, the study revealed limitations in regions with sparse well or core data, underscoring the need for comprehensive ground-truth datasets, suggesting future integration of supervised learning and expanded attribute sets. By bridging the gap between seismic data and geological understanding, this study offers a practical approach to improving exploration strategies and decision-making processes in complex carbonate reservoirs.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202510667
2025-06-02
2026-02-06
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Lubo-Robles, D., Ha, T., Lakshmivarahan, S., Marfurt, K.J., and Pranter, M.J. [2021] Exhaustive probabilistic neural network for attribute selection and supervised seismic facies classification. Interpretation, 9(2), T421–T441.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Qi, J., Zhang, B., Lyu, B., and Marfurt, K.J. [2020] Seismic attribute selection for machine-learning-based facies analysis. Geophysics, 85(2), O17–O35.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Chopra, S. and Marfurt, K.J. [2019] Unsupervised machine learning applications for seismic facies classification. Presented at the Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, SEG, Global Meeting Abstracts, 3135–3142.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Hall, B. [2016] Facies classification using machine learning. The Leading Edge, 35(10), 906–909, doi: 10.1190/tle35100906.1.
    https://doi.org/10.1190/tle35100906.1 [Google Scholar]
  5. Song, C., Liu, Z., Wang, Y., Li, X., and Hu, G. [2017] Multi-waveform classification for seismic facies analysis. Computers & Geosciences, 101, 1–9, doi: 10.1016/j.cageo.2016.12.014.
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2016.12.014 [Google Scholar]
  6. Grana, D., Azevedo, L., and Liu, M. [2020] A comparison of deep machine learning and Monte Carlo methods for facies classification from seismic data. Geophysics, 85(4), WA41–WA52, doi: 10.1190/geo2019‑0405.1.
    https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2019-0405.1 [Google Scholar]
  7. Zhao, T., Jayaram, V., Roy, A., and Marfurt, K.J. [2015] A comparison of classification techniques for seismic facies recognition. Interpretation, 3(4), SAE29–SAE58, doi: 10.1190/INT‑2015‑0044.1.
    https://doi.org/10.1190/INT-2015-0044.1 [Google Scholar]
  8. Saggaf, M.M., Toksöz, M.N., and Marhoon, M.I. [2003] Seismic facies classification and identification by competitive neural networks. Geophysics, 68(6), 1984–1999, doi: 10.1190/1.16350.2.
    https://doi.org/10.1190/1.16350.2 [Google Scholar]
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202510667
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202510667
Loading

Data & Media 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