Machine Learning as a Reliable Technology for Evaluating Time/Rate Performance of Unconventional Wells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Production-data analysis is a practice fraught with inconsistencies. In the application of any single model, the quantity of answers arrived at by experienced evaluators is often equal to the number of evaluators analyzing the data. The cause of such inconsistency is bias on the part of evaluators. Although the colloquial use of bias typically implies systematic error, in this paper, we define bias as an expression of belief by the evaluator. With the lack of recognition of bias, no means exists with which to gauge its accuracy. A method that requires explicit expression of one's bias in time/rate decline behavior can provide an objective means with which to evaluate it. In this work, we present a machine-learning method to forecast production in unconventional, liquid-rich shale and gas-shale wells. Methods were developed for probabilistic decline-curve analysis with Markov-chain Monte Carlo simulation (MCMC) as a means to quantify reserves uncertainty, to incorporate prior information (i.e., bias), and to do so quickly. We extend the existing approaches by (a) a modified likelihood-distribution function to improve “learning” of production data, (b) integration of the transient hyperbolic model (THM) to explicitly define the various flow regimes present in unconventional wells, (c) a method for construction of discretized “percentile neighborhood” forecasts, and (d) construction of type wells from an analyzed well population. The accuracy and calibration of the method are demonstrated by an analysis of 136 wells in the Elm Coulee Field of the Bakken. Quantification of change in time/rate behavior caused by completion design, and the inference of physical behavior and properties, is demonstrated with a tight oil play in the Cleveland sand formation of the Anadarko Basin, as well as a shale play in the Wolfcamp formation of the Permian Basin. We show that this implementation of supervised machine learning, in combination with well-calibrated bias, improves the estimation of uncertainty of the posterior distribution of forecasts. In addition, hindcasts performed at various time intervals result in accurate estimation of mean five-year cumulative production. We observe that the “percentile neighborhood” forecasts are reasonable fits of production data comparable to those that may be created by a human evaluator, and that the type well computed is representative of the decline behavior of the well population upon which it is based. We conclude that, given the speed and accuracy of the process, machine learning is a reliable technology as defined by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and can significantly improve the process of production forecasting by human evaluators for most unconventional wells with consistent trends of production history.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".