4.5 Article

Shape Carving Methods of Geologic Body Interpretation from Seismic Data Based on Deep Learning

Journal

ENERGIES
Volume 15, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/en15031064

Keywords

seismic interpretation; deep learning; image segmentation; convolutional neural networks

Categories

Funding

  1. RIPED
  2. 13th 5-Year Basic Research Program of CNPC [2018A-3306]
  3. Stanford Center for Earth Resources Forecasting (SCERF)
  4. School of Earth, Energy, and Environmental Sciences, Stanford University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The task of seismic data interpretation is time-consuming and uncertain, but machine learning tools can provide a shortcut between raw seismic data and reservoir characteristics. Convolutional neural networks are efficient for seismic facies classification and interpretation. In this study, we experimented with three different convolutional architectures and compared their results and computational efficiency using synthetic and field datasets.
The task of seismic data interpretation is a time-consuming and uncertain process. Machine learning tools can help to build a shortcut between raw seismic data and reservoir characteristics of interest. Recently, techniques involving convolutional neural networks have started to gain momentum. Convolutional neural networks are particularly efficient at pattern recognition within images, and this is why they are suitable for seismic facies classification and interpretation tasks. We experimented with three different architectures based on convolutional layers and compared them with different synthetic and field datasets in terms of quality of the seismic interpretation results and computational efficiency. The architectures used in our study were three deep fully convolutional architectures: a 3D convolutional network with a fully connected head; a 2D fully convolutional network, and U-Net. We found the U-Net architecture to be both robust and the fastest when performing classification at the prediction stage. The 3D convolutional model with a fully connected head was the slowest, while a fully convolutional model was unstable in its predictions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available