Prediction of TOC in Lishui–Jiaojiang Sag Using Geochemical Analysis, Well Logs, and Machine Learning

Xu Han, Dujie Hou (), Xiong Cheng, Yan Li, Congkai Niu and Shuosi Chen
Additional contact information
Xu Han: School of Energy Resources, China University of Geosciences, Beijing 100083, China
Dujie Hou: School of Energy Resources, China University of Geosciences, Beijing 100083, China
Xiong Cheng: School of Energy Resources, China University of Geosciences, Beijing 100083, China
Yan Li: School of Energy Resources, China University of Geosciences, Beijing 100083, China
Congkai Niu: School of Energy Resources, China University of Geosciences, Beijing 100083, China
Shuosi Chen: Key Laboratory of Marine Reservoir Evolution and Hydrocarbon Accumulation Mechanism, Ministry of Education, China University of Geosciences, Beijing 100083, China

Energies, 2022, vol. 15, issue 24, 1-25

Abstract: Total organic carbon (TOC) is important geochemical data for evaluating the hydrocarbon generation potential of source rocks. TOC is commonly measured experimentally using cutting and core samples. The coring process and experimentation are always expensive and time-consuming. In this study, we evaluated the use of three machine learning (ML) models and two multiple regression models to predict TOC based on well logs. The well logs involved gamma rays (GR), deep resistivity (RT), density (DEN), acoustic waves (AC), and neutrons (CN). The ML models were developed based on random forest (RF), extreme learning machine (ELM), and back propagation neural network (BPNN). The source rock of Paleocene Yueguifeng Formation in Lishui–Jiaojiang Sag was taken as a case study. The number of TOC measurements used for training and testing were 50 and 27. All well logs and selected well logs (including AC, CN, and DEN) were used as inputs, respectively, for comparison. The performance of each model has been evaluated using different factors, including R 2 , MAE, MSE, and RMSE. The results suggest that using all well logs as input improved the TOC prediction accuracy, and the error was reduced by more than 30%. The accuracy comparison of ML and multiple regression models indicated the BPNN was the best, followed by RF and then multiple regression. The worst performance was observed in the ELM models. Considering the running time, the BPNN model has higher prediction accuracy but longer running time in small-sample regression prediction. The RF model can run faster while ensuring a certain prediction accuracy. This study confirmed the ability of ML models for estimating TOC using well logs data in the study area.

Keywords: machine learning; geochemical analysis; well log data; source rock; Lishui–Jiaojiang Sag (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q Q0 Q4 Q40 Q41 Q42 Q43 Q47 Q48 Q49 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/24/9480/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/24/9480/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jeners:v:15:y:2022:i:24:p:9480-:d:1003302

Access Statistics for this article

Energies is currently edited by Ms. Agatha Cao

More articles in Energies from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().