Journal of Oil, Gas and Petrochemical Technology

Journal of Oil, Gas and Petrochemical Technology

Young’s Modulus Estimation Using Machine Learning Methods and Daily Drilling Reports

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors
Parirokh Ebrahimi 1
Ali RANJBAR 1, 2
Fatemeh Mohammadi nia 1, 2
Hojat Ghimatgar 3
Abbas Hashemizadeh 4
1 Faculty of Petroleum, Gas and Petrochemical Engineering, Persian Gulf University, Bushehr, Iran
2 Sustainable Exploitation of Underground Resources Research Group, Persian Gulf University, Bushehr, Iran
3 Department of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Intelligent Systems Engineering and Data Science, Persian Gulf University, Bushehr, Iran
4 Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Qom, Qom, Iran
10.22034/jogpt.2023.356733.1107
Abstract
To avoid drilling damages, it is very important to determine the field stress. Prediction of elastic parameters such as Poisson's ratio and Young's modulus is of great importance in determining in-situ stress and completing geomechanical modeling. These parameters are calculated statically through laboratory tests on drilling cores or dynamically through log data. However, such data may not be available in the oil field data-bank. Therefore, Daily Drilling Reports (DDR) can be introduced as a suitable alternative for predicting rock’s elastic modulus. In this study, for the first time, an attempt has been made to estimate the Dynamic Young’s modulus using DDR data with the application of a variety of conventional machine learning methods. In this regard, linear, support vector machine (SVM), artificial neural network (ANN), Random Forest (RF) LSBoost, and Baysian have been used. Input data to these algorithms also include depth, string rotary speed (RPM), rate of penetration (ROP), weight on bit (WOB), density (RHOB), porosity (Φ), pump pressure (PP), and tangential velocity (TV). Each of these algorithms was then compared in terms of accuracy using correlation coefficient (R2), mean squared error (MSE), and root mean square error (RMSE) criteria. Finally, using conventional experimental correlations and using core data, the resulting values were converted to static values. The results show that using daily drilling reports, based on the above criteria, a good estimate of the elastic parameters can be achieved. Also, among the methods used, Baysian and LSBoost methods have slightly higher and better accuracy than other methods.
Keywords
Daily Drilling Report
Young Modulus
Geomechanical Parameters
Support Vector Machine, Artificial Neural Network
  1. Al-Zubaidi, N.S. and A.K. Al-Neeamy, 3D mechanical earth model for Zubair oilfield in southern Iraq. Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology, 2020: p. 1-13.
  2. Ranjbar, A., 3D geomechanical modeling and estimating the compaction and subsidence of Fahlian reservoir formation (X-field in SW of Iran). Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 2017. 10: p. 116.
  3. Dahab, A., et al. Managing wellbore instability through geomechanical modeling and wellbore stability analysis. in 54th US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium. 2020. OnePetro.
  4. Halafawi, D. and D. Avram, Wellbore instability prediction and performance analysis using Poroelastic modeling. J Oil Gas Petrochem Sci, 2019. 2(2): p. 93-106.
  5. Mohammed, H.Q., A. Abbas, and H.H. Dahm. Wellbore instability analysis for Nahr Umr Formation in southern Iraq. in 52nd US rock mechanics/geomechanics symposium. 2018. OnePetro.
  6. Afsari, M., et al. Using drilling and logging data for developing 1d mechanical earth model for a mature oil field to predict and mitigate wellbore stability challenges. in International Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition in China. 2010. OnePetro.
  7. Charlez, P.A., A. Onaisi, and J. Lecourtier, Wellbore stability: One of the most important engineering challenges when drilling smart wells. Interactive drilling for fast track oilfield development: Editions Technip, 2001: p. 77-102.
  8. Ma, T., et al., Uncertainty evaluation of safe mud weight window utilizing the reliability assessment method. Energies, 2019. 12(5): p. 942.
  9. Darvishpour, A., et al., Wellbore stability analysis to determine the safe mud weight window for sandstone layers. Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2019. 46(5): p. 1031-1038.
  10. Cherian, B.V., et al. Evaluating horizontal well completion effectiveness in a field development program. in SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference. 2012. OnePetro.
  11. Higgins, S.M., et al. Anisotropic stress models improve completion design in the Baxter Shale. in SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. 2008. OnePetro.
  12. Assad, J.M., The effect of orthorhombic anisotropy and its implication for oil recovery and reservoir exploitation. Geophysical prospecting, 2005. 53(1): p. 121-129.
  13. Azin, R., A. Izadpanahi, and A. Ranjbar, Challenges of Gas Injection, in Fundamentals and Practical Aspects of Gas Injection. 2022, Springer. p. 397-413.
  14. Raghavan, R. and L.Y. Chin. Productivity changes in reservoirs with stress-dependent permeability. in SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. 2002. OnePetro.
  15. Ali, A.H.A., Watching rocks change-mechanical earth modeling. Oilfield Review, summer, 2003. 15: p. 22-39.
  16. Fatehiboroujeni, S., A. Gopinath, and S. Goyal, Three-dimensional nonlinear dynamics of prestressed active filaments: flapping, swirling, and flipping. Physical Review E, 2021. 103(1): p. 013005.
  17. Atanackovic, T.M. and A. Guran, Hooke’s law, in Theory of elasticity for scientists and engineers. 2000, Springer. p. 85-111.
  18. Fei, W., et al., Correlation of dynamic and static elastic parameters of rock. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2016. 21(04): p. 1551-1560.
  19. Vishkai, M., et al., Modeling geomechanical properties in the montney formation, Alberta, Canada. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 2017. 96: p. 94-105.
  20. Eissa, E. and A. Kazi, Relation between static and dynamic Young's moduli of rocks. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining & Geomechanics Abstracts, 1988. 25(6).
  21. Peng, L., L. Xinrong, and Z. Zuliang, Mechanical property experiment and damage statistical constitutive model of Hongze rock salt in China. Electron. J. Geotech. Eng, 2015. 20: p. 81-94.
  22. Zisman, W., Comparison of the statically and seismologically determined elastic constants of rocks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 1933. 19(7): p. 680.
  23. Fjar, E., et al., Petroleum related rock mechanics. 2008: Elsevier.
  24. Martínez-Martínez, J., D. Benavente, and M. García-del-Cura, Comparison of the static and dynamic elastic modulus in carbonate rocks. Bulletin of engineering geology and the environment, 2012. 71(2): p. 263-268.
  25. Elkatatny, S., Application of artificial intelligence techniques to estimate the static Poisson's ratio based on wireline log data. Journal of Energy Resources Technology, 2018. 140(7).
  26. Tariq, Z., et al. A holistic approach to develop new rigorous empirical correlation for static Young's modulus. in Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference. 2016. OnePetro.
  27. Siddig, O.M., et al., Drilling Data-Based Approach to Build a Continuous Static Elastic Moduli Profile Utilizing Artificial Intelligence Techniques. Journal of Energy Resources Technology, 2021. 144(2): p. 023001.
  28. Siddig, O., et al., Real-time prediction of Poisson’s ratio from drilling parameters using machine learning tools. Scientific Reports, 2021. 11(1): p. 1-13.
  29. Elkatatny , S., Real-Time Prediction of the Dynamic Young’s Modulus from the Drilling Parameters Using the Artificial Neural Networks. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 2021: p. 1-10.
  30. King, M.S., Static and dynamic elastic properties of igneous and metamorphic rocks from the Canadian shield. 1983.
  31. Najibi, A.R., et al., Empirical relations between strength and static and dynamic elastic properties of Asmari and Sarvak limestones, two main oil reservoirs in Iran. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 2015. 126: p. 78-82.
  32. b Heerden, W. General relations between static and dynamic moduli of rocks. in International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts. 1987. Elsevier.
  33. Horsrud, P., Estimating Mechanical Properties of Shale From Empirical Correlations. SPE Drilling & Completion, 2001. 16(02): p. 68-73.
  34. Christaras, B., F. Auger, and E. Mosse, Determination of the moduli of elasticity of rocks. Comparison of the ultrasonic velocity and mechanical resonance frequency methods with direct static methods. Materials and Structures, 1994. 27(4): p. 222-228.
  35. Feng, C., et al., A new empirical method based on piecewise linear model to predict static Poisson's ratio via well logs. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 2019. 175: p. 1-8.
  36. Sozontov, A., M. Ivanova, and A. Gibadullin. Implementation of artificial intelligence in the electric power industry. in E3S Web of Conferences. 2019. EDP Sciences.
  37. Kaur, S., et al., Medical diagnostic systems using artificial intelligence (ai) algorithms: Principles and perspectives. IEEE Access, 2020. 8: p. 228049-228069.
  38. Shamshirband, S., et al., A review on deep learning approaches in healthcare systems: Taxonomies, challenges, and open issues. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 2020: p. 103627.
  39. Tran, N.L., et al., Application of Interpretable Machine-Learning Workflows To Identify Brittle, Fracturable, and Producible Rock in Horizontal Wells Using Surface Drilling Data. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 2020. 23(04): p. 1328-1342.
  40. Salehi, S., et al., Casing collapse risk assessment and depth prediction with a neural network system approach. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 2009. 69(1-2): p. 156-162.
  41. Tariq, Z., et al. A new technique to develop rock strength correlation using artificial intelligence tools. in SPE Reservoir Characterisation and Simulation Conference and Exhibition. 2017. OnePetro.
  42. Elkatatny, S., et al., Development of new mathematical model for compressional and shear sonic times from wireline log data using artificial intelligence neural networks (white box). Arabian Journal for Science & Engineering (Springer Science & Business Media BV), 2018. 43(11).
  43. Ebrahimi, A., et al., Estimation of shear wave velocity in an Iranian oil reservoir using machine learning methods. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 2021: p. 109841.
  44. Tariq, Z., et al. A new approach to predict failure parameters of carbonate rocks using artificial intelligence tools. in SPE Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Annual Technical Symposium and Exhibition. 2017. OnePetro.
  45. Elkatatny, S. and M. Mahmoud, Development of a new correlation for bubble point pressure in oil reservoirs using artificial intelligent technique. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 2018. 43(5): p. 2491-2500.
  46. Al-AbdulJabbar, A., A.A. Mahmoud, and S. Elkatatny, Artificial neural network model for real-time prediction of the rate of penetration while horizontally drilling natural gas-bearing sandstone formations. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 2021. 14(2): p. 1-14.
  47. Mahmoud, A.A., et al. Artificial neural networks model for prediction of the rate of penetration while horizontally drilling carbonate formations. in 54th US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium. 2020. OnePetro.
  48. Salaheldin, E., New approach to optimize the rate of penetration using artificial neural network. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 2018. 43(11): p. 6297-6304.
  49. Elkatatny, S., et al. Optimization of rate of penetration using artificial intelligent techniques. in 51st US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium. 2017. OnePetro.
  50. Mahmoud, A.A., et al., Estimation of static young’s modulus for sandstone formation using artificial neural networks. Energies, 2019. 12(11): p. 2125.
  51. Hadi, F., A. Eckert, and F. Almahdawi. Real-time pore pressure prediction in depleted reservoirs using regression analysis and artificial neural networks. in SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference. 2019. OnePetro.
  52. Mahmoud, A.A., et al., Evaluation of the total organic carbon (TOC) using different artificial intelligence techniques. Sustainability, 2019. 11(20): p. 5643.
  53. Zhu, L., et al., Forming a new small sample deep learning model to predict total organic carbon content by combining unsupervised learning with semisupervised learning. Applied Soft Computing, 2019. 83: p. 105596.
  54. Zhu, L., et al., A new and reliable dual model-and data-driven TOC prediction concept: A TOC logging evaluation method using multiple overlapping methods integrated with semi-supervised deep learning. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 2020. 188: p. 106944.
  55. Mahmoud, A.A., et al. New robust model to evaluate the total organic carbon using fuzzy logic. in SPE Kuwait Oil & Gas Show and Conference. 2019. OnePetro.
  56. Zhu, L., et al., High-precision calculation of gas saturation in organic shale pores using an intelligent fusion algorithm and a multi-mineral model. Advances in Geo-Energy Research, 2020. 4(2): p. 135-151.
  57. Mahmoud, A.A., S. Elkatatny, and A. Al-AbdulJabbar, Application of machine learning models for real-time prediction of the formation lithology and tops from the drilling parameters. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 2021. 203: p. 108574.
  58. Moazzeni, A. and M.A. Haffar, Artificial intelligence for lithology identification through real-time drilling data. Journal of Earth Science & Climatic Change, 2015. 6(3): p. 1-4.
  59. Elkatatny, S., A. Al-AbdulJabbar, and A.A. Mahmoud, New robust model to estimate formation tops in real time using artificial neural networks (ANN). Petrophysics-The SPWLA Journal of Formation Evaluation and Reservoir Description, 2019. 60(06): p. 825-837.
  60. Mahmoud, A.A., M. Elzenary, and S. Elkatatny, New hybrid hole cleaning model for vertical and deviated wells. Journal of Energy Resources Technology, 2020. 142(3).
  61. Abdelgawad, K., et al., Real-time determination of rheological properties of spud drilling fluids using a hybrid artificial intelligence technique. Journal of Energy Resources Technology, 2019. 141(3).
  62. Ahmed S, A., et al. Prediction of pore and fracture pressures using support vector machine. in International Petroleum Technology Conference. 2019. OnePetro.
  63. Ahmed, A., S. Elkatatny, and A. Ali, Fracture Pressure Prediction Using Surface Drilling Parameters by Artificial Intelligence Techniques. Journal of Energy Resources Technology, 2021. 143(3): p. 033201.
  64. Abdelaal, A., S. Elkatatny, and A. Abdulraheem, Data-Driven Modeling Approach for Pore Pressure Gradient Prediction while Drilling from Drilling Parameters. ACS omega, 2021.
  65. Atashnezhad, A., A.E. Cedola, and G. Hareland. An empirical model to estimate a critical stimulation design parameter using drilling data. in SPE Western Regional Meeting. 2017. OnePetro.
  66. Diaz, M.B., et al., Drilling data from an enhanced geothermal project and its pre-processing for ROP forecasting improvement. Geothermics, 2018. 72: p. 348-357.
  67. Diaz, M.B., et al., Predicting rate of penetration during drilling of deep geothermal well in Korea using artificial neural networks and real-time data collection. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 2019. 67: p. 225-232.
  68. Mensa-Wilmot, G., B. Calhoun, and V.P. Perrin. Formation drillability-definition, quantification and contributions to bit performance evaluation. in SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology Conference. 1999. OnePetro.
  69. Ahmed, A., S. Elkatatny, and A. Alsaihati, Applications of Artificial Intelligence for Static Poisson’s Ratio Prediction While Drilling. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, 2021. 2021.
  70. Asadi, A., Application of artificial neural networks in prediction of uniaxial compressive strength of rocks using well logs and drilling data. Procedia Engineering, 2017. 191: p. 279-286.
  71. Amani, A. and K. Shahbazi, Prediction of rock strength using drilling data and sonic logs. International Journal of Computer Applications, 2013. 81(2).
  72. Kalantari, S., H. Hashemolhosseini, and A. Baghbanan, Estimating rock strength parameters using drilling data. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 2018. 104: p. 45-52.
  73. Elkatatny, S., et al. Application of artificial intelligent techniques to determine sonic time from well logs. in 50th US rock mechanics/geomechanics symposium. 2016. OnePetro.
  74. Mahmoud, A.A., et al. Functional neural networks-based model for prediction of the static Young's modulus for sandstone formations. in 54th US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium. 2020. OnePetro.
  75. Al-Anazi, B.D., et al. Prediction of Poisson's ratio and Young's modulus for hydrocarbon reservoirs using alternating conditional expectation Algorithm. in SPE Middle East oil and gas show and conference. 2011. OnePetro.
  76. Gamal, H., et al., Rock Strength Prediction in Real-Time While Drilling Employing Random Forest and Functional Network Techniques. Journal of Energy Resources Technology, 2021. 143(9): p. 093004.
  77. Siddig, O. and S. Elkatatny, Workflow to build a continuous static elastic moduli profile from the drilling data using artificial intelligence techniques. Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology, 2021: p. 1-10.
  78. Abdulraheem, A., et al. Prediction of rock mechanical parameters for hydrocarbon reservoirs using different artificial intelligence techniques. in SPE Saudi Arabia Section Technical Symposium. 2009. OnePetro.
  79. Tariq, Z., et al., A rigorous data-driven approach to predict Poisson's ratio of carbonate rocks using a functional network. Petrophysics-The SPWLA Journal of Formation Evaluation and Reservoir Description, 2018. 59(06): p. 761-777.
  80. Tariq, Z., et al. Estimation of rock mechanical parameters using artificial intelligence tools. in 51st US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium. 2017. OnePetro.
  81. He, M., et al., Deep convolutional neural network for fast determination of the rock strength parameters using drilling data. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 2019. 123: p. 104084.
  82. Sepehr, M. and J. Cosgrove, Role of the Kazerun Fault Zone in the formation and deformation of the Zagros Fold‐Thrust Belt, Iran. Tectonics, 2005. 24(5).
  83. KhostoTehrani, K., Iran Geology. Tehran: Klidar, 2005.
  84. Vernant, P., et al., Present-day crustal deformation and plate kinematics in the Middle East constrained by GPS measurements in Iran and northern Oman. Geophysical Journal International, 2004. 157(1): p. 381-398.
  85. Aghanabati, A., Iran Geology. Tehran: Geological Survey & Mineral Explorations of Iran, 2004.
  86. Moteyie, Iran Geology Tehran: Geological Survey of the country, 1374.
  87. Maleki, Z., M. Arian, and A. Solgi, Folding pattern in the Fars province, Zagros folded belt: case study on the Karbasi and Khaftar anticlines, interior Fars, Iran. Solid Earth Discussions, 2015.
  88. Alsharhan, A., Albian Clastics in the Western Arabian Gulf Region: a Sedimentological and Petroleum‐Geological Interpretation. Journal of Petroleum Geology, 1994. 17(3): p. 279-300.
  89. Motiei, H., Petroleum geology of the Persian Gulf. Tehran University Press, 2009.
  90. Sharma, V., S. Rai, and A. Dev, A comprehensive study of artificial neural networks. International Journal of Advanced research in computer science and software engineering, 2012. 2(10).
  91. Arber, S., et al., MLP-deficient mice exhibit a disruption of cardiac cytoarchitectural organization, dilated cardiomyopathy, and heart failure. Cell, 1997. 88(3): p. 393-403.
  92. Bello, O., et al., Application of artificial intelligence methods in drilling system design and operations: a review of the state of the art. Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing Research, 2015. 5.
  93. Chen, T., H. Chen, and R.-w. Liu, A constructive proof and an extension of Cybenko’s approximation theorem, in Computing science and statistics. 1992, Springer. p. 163-168.
  94. Cybenko, G., Approximation by superpositions of a sigmoidal function. Mathematics of control, signals and systems, 1989. 2(4): p. 303-314.
  95. Sindhwani, V., et al., Feature selection in MLPs and SVMs based on maximum output information. IEEE transactions on neural networks, 2004. 15(4): p. 937-948.
  96. Collobert, R. and S. Bengio. Links between perceptrons, MLPs and SVMs. in Proceedings of the twenty-first international conference on Machine learning. 2004.
  97. Saljooghi, B.S. and A. Hezarkhani, A new approach to improve permeability prediction of petroleum reservoirs using neural network adaptive wavelet (wavenet). Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 2015. 133: p. 851-861.
  98. Tariq, Z., et al. A new artificial intelligence based empirical correlation to predict sonic travel time. in International Petroleum Technology Conference. 2016. OnePetro.
  99. Abdulaziz, A.M., H.A. Mahdi, and M.H. Sayyouh, Prediction of reservoir quality using well logs and seismic attributes analysis with an artificial neural network: a case study from Farrud Reservoir, Al-Ghani Field, Libya. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 2019. 161: p. 239-254.
  100. Bühlmann, P. and T. Hothorn, Boosting algorithms: Regularization, prediction and model fitting. Statistical science, 2007. 22(4): p. 477-505.
  101. Friedman, J.H., Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine. Annals of statistics, 2001: p. 1189-1232.
  102. Pearl, J., Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: networks of plausible inference. 2014: Elsevier.
  103. Uusitalo, L., Advantages and challenges of Bayesian networks in environmental modelling. Ecological modelling, 2007. 203(3-4): p. 312-318.
  104. Aguilera, P.A., et al., Bayesian networks in environmental modelling. Environmental Modelling & Software, 2011. 26(12): p. 1376-1388.
  105. Vapnik, V., The nature of statistical learning theory. 2013: Springer science & business media.
  106. Misra, D., et al., Application and analysis of support vector machine based simulation for runoff and sediment yield. Biosystems engineering, 2009. 103(4): p. 527-535.
  107. Hamel, L.H., Knowledge discovery with support vector machines. Vol. 3. 2011: John Wiley & Sons.
  108. Yu, H. and S. Kim, SVM Tutorial-Classification, Regression and Ranking. Handbook of Natural computing, 2012. 1: p. 479-506.
  109. Biau, G. and E. Scornet, A random forest guided tour. Test, 2016. 25(2): p. 197-227.
  110. Rodriguez-Galiano, V.F., et al., An assessment of the effectiveness of a random forest classifier for land-cover classification. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 2012. 67: p. 93-104.
  111. Ghimatgar, H., et al., An automatic single-channel EEG-based sleep stage scoring method based on hidden Markov model. Journal of neuroscience methods, 2019. 324: p. 108320.
  112. Breiman, L., Random forests. Machine learning, 2001. 45(1): p. 5-32.
  113. Zou, C., et al. A random forest regressor based uncertainty quantification of porosity estimation from multiple seismic attributes. in First International Meeting for Applied Geoscience & Energy. 2021. Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
  114. Ho, T.K. Random decision forests. in Proceedings of 3rd international conference on document analysis and recognition. 1995. IEEE.
  115. Rodriguez-Galiano, V.F., et al., Modelling interannual variation in the spring and autumn land surface phenology of the European forest. Biogeosciences, 2016. 13(11): p. 3305-3317.
Journal of Oil, Gas and Petrochemical Technology
Volume 10, Issue 1
March 2023
Pages 1-24