Reservoir Ranking Map Sketching for Selection of Infill and Replacement Drilling Locations Using Machine Learning Technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Infill and replacement drilling are effective ways to improve oil recovery as increasingly more wells are drilled in close proximity for fracturing. Presently, the approaches being employed are logging surveys, the moving window method, the rapid inversion method, and the customized type curve method. However, these methods are not suitable for reservoirs with high levels of heterogeneity in terms of geology, and require more expert knowledge and field survey, which can be time consuming and costly. Therefore, the present method developed is an economic and fast approach to determine infill and replacement drilling location from reservoir ranking maps generated in combination with machine learning methods. During this project, production data and reservoir parameters were gathered from an old oil field with more than 2,500 wells where most of the field was under water injection. Bubble maps were created for each reservoir parameter for a better visual representation of reservoir conditions. Then, after data cleansing and normalization procedures, the standout attributes were identified from all given reservoir parameters and production history and a reservoir ranking rule was set. Next, five types of classification approaches were used for prediction. This paper additionally presents a regression method, artificial neural network (ANN), to compare with the prediction results from classification. For each machine learning technique, a reserve ranking map was generated for this test field to predict future infill drilling and replacement drilling opportunities. Thus, with only geographic coordinates, the reserve ranking level was obtained. From cross-fold validation results, a quadratic support vector machine provides the highest prediction accuracy. From a practical standpoint, a decision tree offers a more realistic result. In addition to the ANN method outputs, the ranking result provides a smooth method between certain levels. This new approach of using artificial intelligence was used to provide the ranking level and ranking number to identify the best options for drilling the wells, which is different from the present traditional methods. This advanced reservoir ranking map allows operators to identify the best location for infill or replacement drilling. It can additionally help operators benefit from their previously gathered knowledge in a cost-effective way.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".