An Artificial Intelligence Belief System Reduces Nonproductive Time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article contains highlights of paper SPE 189799, “Self-Learning Probabilistic Detection and Alerting of Drillstring Washout and Pump Failure Incidents During Drilling Operations,” by A. Ambrus, formerly with Intellicess; P. Ashok, D. Ramos, A. Chintapalli, Intellicess; A. Susich, T. Thetford, B. Nelson, M. Shahri, J. McNab, and M. Behounek, Apache Corp., presented at the 2018 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition, Fort Worth, Texas, 6–8 March. https:/doi.org/10.2118/189700-MS Introduction In recent years, detection and alerting systems have been applied to numerous drilling failures, including stuck pipe, fluid influx/loss, and drilling dysfunctions. But the detection of drillstring washout and mud pump failure has been left primarily to traditional methods that rely solely on standpipe pressure and pump rates or on measurement-while-drilling (MWD) sensor data. Drillers commonly use a simple hydraulic coefficient relating standpipe pressure to pump rate to detect drillstring washouts. MWD pressure and mud motor data may improve detection but this approach remains problematic owing to poor-quality sensor data and various factors that affect flow and pressure data. As a result, drillers often do not recognize a crack in the drillstring before it grows into a washout that may cost operators hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost time, equipment replacement, and fishing operations. Drillers also rely on standpipe pressure changes to detect mud pump failures and degradation from damaged pump parts. High-frequency pump pressure data may enhance pump wear detection and accelerometer data may be used to infer valve leaks, but these solutions are impractical in most field applications. To address these shortcomings, a methodology has been introduced using basic rig sensors and contextual information to detect various drilling failure modes. It has applied that same approach to early wash-out and pump failures detection and alerting. Methodology The detection and alerting system uses a Bayesian network, which aggregates key sensor inputs and contextual data and predictions from hydraulic modeling. Cumulatively they are the inputs to a probabilistic belief system. The probabilistic model outputs belief values of between 0 and 1 that are indicative of specific drilling, equipment, and sensor failures. Just as the human brain uses experience to generate beliefs upon which to act and react to the world around it intelligently, the probabilistic model uses past and present trends and artificial intelligence (AI) to generate beliefs about drilling dysfunctions and equipment failures. The model also assesses these trends to increase its accuracy through self-learning and self-calibration that enables it to adjust for poor sensor data, drilling conditions, and model uncertainties. As a consequence, when the value of a belief rises to a specified level and the system triggers an alert, the driller can act upon it with increased certainty that it is not a false alarm. Bayesian networks consist of discrete, or continuous-valued, nodes. Nodes are connected via conditional probability tables (CPTs) and linked by arrows generally representing the direction of causation. Each CPT is assigned a specific weight based on its relative impact on specific outcomes. A Bayesian Network in which the key node is “Unplanned Event” includes several event types and their associated probabilities, or beliefs. This network arrangement can be used to detect a broad variety of incidents related to well control and hydraulics, such as washouts, pump failures, kicks, lost circulation, wellbore breathing, packoff and others to which a probability value is assigned.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".