MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000664444 · doi:10.2523/iptc-20344-ms

Data Mining: A Novel Strategy for Production Forecast in Tight Hydrocarbon Resource in Canada by Random Forest Analysis

2020· article· en· W3000664444 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lulu Liao, Yijin Zeng, Yu Liang, Hongbao Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Petroleum Technology Conference · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTight gasPetrophysicsPetroleum engineeringComputer scienceProduction (economics)Oil shaleFossil fuelProductivityData miningEnvironmental scienceGeologyEngineeringHydraulic fracturingGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unconventional hydrocarbon resources, including shale hydrocarbon, tight hydrocarbon and coalbed methane, have become an increasingly essential part of global oil and gas supply during the past decades. Tight Oil and Gas projects, especially in Canada, exhibit a number of unique features, such as large onshore geographical area, variable but relative low productivity, intensive drilling and formation stimulation programs and complicated operational process. These features differentiate such unconventional formations from conventional formations, thus the traditional knowledge and methodology cannot be simply applied to unconventional resource plays. To better develop a tight hydrocarbon formation with lower capital, expense and lifting cost, in this paper a novel model based on data mining for tight oil production prediction and Geography / Petrophysics / Engineering parameters optimization has been introduced. It establishes a correlation between Estimated Ultimate Recovery (EUR) and key independent parameters (geography / petrophysics / engineering) by machine learning analysis. In this study, all the data with more than 50 variables over Canada Cardium tight oil formation, including production, well logging, well testing, seismic, lab experiments and other tests, have been collected and used for the analysis. Firstly, the multi-sets of cumulative production data and relavent Geography / Petrophysics / Engineering (GPE) parameters are collected. Then a sensitivity test is carried out to determine the most important GPE parameters and thus a spatial database is set up. Based on the sensitive test and data mining results, multiple key parameters have been recognized and used as independent variables for the machine learning analysis. Among all the machine-learning algorithms, the Random Forest is applied to evaluate the relationship between EUR and multi independent variables. In order to improve the model accuracy, a supervised learning algorithm is applied to train the model. Based on the sensitivity analysis results, the following matrices, well location (WL), Resource Density (RD), True Vertical Depth (TVD), Stimulated Length (SL), Total Stage Count (TSC), Pumped Proppant Per Length (PPL), Pumped Fluid Per Length (PFL) Sand Concentration (SC) and Injection Rate (IR), are recognized as the most important and sensitive independent variables for production prediction in Cardium tight oil formation. The models are established based on different machine learning algorithms, and the prediction results are compared and discussed in detail. The accuracy of prediction by Random Forest could reach as high as 90%, which is much higher than predictions by other machine learning algorithms. Therefore, the predictive model based on Random Forest is used as a feasible tool for economic evaluation by Sinopec. The data, methodology, models and predictions demonstrated in this paper can potentially bring great and novel value to the industry. This study offers an insight on the tight hydrocarbon production mechanism from a big data mining perspective, as well as a feasible and accurate method to predict production and evaluate project economic feasibility in Cardium formation. In addition, different machine learning algorithms, based on geography, petrophysics, and engineering data with more than 50 variables in Cardium formation, are summarized and compared for the first time. The methodology discussed in this paper can be easily applied to other unconventional fields and formations such as Montney, Eagle Ford, Fuling and Bakken Shale plays to predict production accurately in the case that the data are available.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.669
Threshold uncertainty score0.657

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Petroleum Technology ConferenceSame topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysisFrench-language works237,207