Automated Well-Log Processing and Lithology Classification by Identifying Optimal Features Through Unsupervised and Supervised Machine-Learning Algorithms

The application of specialized machine learning (ML) in petroleum engineering and geoscience is increasingly gaining attention in the development of rapid and efficient methods as a substitute to existing methods. Existing ML-based studies that use well logs contain two inherent limitations. The first limitation is that they start with one predefined combination of well logs that by default assumes that the chosen combination of well logs is poised to give the best outcome in teens of prediction, although the variation in accuracy obtained through different combinations of well logs can be substantial. The second limitation is that most studies apply unsupervised learning (UL) for classification problems, but it underperforms by a substantial margin compared with nearly all the supervised learning (SL) algorithms. In this context, this study investigates a variety of UL and SL ML algorithms applied on multiple well-log combinations (WLCs) to automate the traditional workflow of well-log processing and classification, including an optimization step to achieve the best output. The workflow begins by processing the measured well logs, which includes developing different combinations of measured well logs and their physics-motivated augmentations, followed by removal of potential outliers from the input WLCs. Reservoir lithology with four different rock types is investigated using eight UL and seven SL algorithms in two different case studies. The results from the two case studies are used to identify the optimal set of well logs and the ML algorithm that gives the best matching reservoir lithology to its ground truth. The workflow is demonstrated using two wells from two different reservoirs on Alaska North Slope to distinguish four different rock types along the well (brine-dominated sand, hydrate-dominated sand, shale, and others/mixed compositions). The results show that the automated workflow investigated in this study can discover the ground truth for the lithology with up to 80% accuracy with UL and up to 90% accuracy with SL, using six routine well logs [nu(p), nu(s), rho(b), phi(neut), R-t, gamma ray (GR)], which is a significant improvement compared with the accuracy reported in the current state of the art, which is less than 70%.