IEEE Access (Jan 2020)
A Comparative Study of Five Networks for Reservoir Classification Based on Geophysical Logging Signals
Abstract
Unconventional reservoir classification suffers low accuracy because of the complex geophysical properties. With good performance and moderate cost, geophysical logging is considered to be of great potential as the compromise solution between seismic and core. Since the “sweet-spot” depending on the sands' properties are implied not in the logging “point” but “segment”, 1D-CNN is supposed to be a better fit for reservoir classification: It doesn't pay too much attention to the logging signal sequence itself like LSTM, but focuses on feature extraction from the whole signals combination. Moreover, samples would have various sizes because of different layer thickness. While 1D-CNN requires all samples must be converted to a uniform size before input. 1D fully convolutional network (1D-FCN) can receive any size input of layer thickness without manually aligning it to the same size. For the first time in this paper, structures of the five networks including two fully connected networks (global mapping artificial neural network, GM-ANN and point-to-point mapping artificial neural network, PPM-ANN), two fully convolutional networks (1D fully convolutional network with decision-level fusion, 1D-FCN-DEF and 1D fully convolutional network with data-level fusion, 1D-FCN-DAF) and the common 1D convolutional neural network (1D-CNN) are compared and evaluated the suitability for processing logging data in detail. Results on tight gas in Ordos basin of China illustrated by receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves show that 1D-FCN-DEF and 1D-FCN-DAF have achieved the higher area under the curve (AUC) with the values of 0.8889 and 0.9107 respectively in average comparing to 0.7515, 0.8006 and 0.8364 of GM-ANN, PPM-ANN and 1D-CNN. Case study proves that 1D-FCNs are more accurate than other networks. This paper provides a suitable new idea for logging interpretation and expands the application scope of DL in geophysical logging signals processing.
Keywords