Machine learning approaches for the prediction of serious fluid leakage from hydrocarbon wells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The exploitation of hydrocarbon reservoirs may potentially lead to contamination of soils, shallow water resources, and greenhouse gas emissions. Fluids such as methane or CO2may in some cases migrate toward the groundwater zone and atmosphere through and along imperfectly sealed hydrocarbon wells. Field tests in hydrocarbon-producing regions are routinely conducted for detecting serious leakage to prevent environmental pollution. The challenge is that testing is costly, time-consuming, and sometimes labor-intensive. In this study, machine learning approaches were applied to predict serious leakage with uncertainty quantification for wells that have not been field tested in Alberta, Canada. An improved imputation technique was developed by Cholesky factorization of the covariance matrix between features, where missing data are imputed via conditioning of available values. The uncertainty in imputed values was quantified and incorporated into the final prediction to improve decision-making. Next, a wide range of predictive algorithms and various performance metrics were considered to achieve the most reliable classifier. However, a highly skewed distribution of field tests toward the negative class (nonserious leakage) forces predictive models to unrealistically underestimate the minority class (serious leakage). To address this issue, a combination of oversampling, undersampling, and ensemble learning was applied. By investigating all the models on never-before-seen data, an optimum classifier with minimal false negative prediction was determined. The developed methodology can be applied to identify the wells with the highest likelihood for serious fluid leakage within producing fields. This information is of key importance for optimizing field test operations to achieve economic and environmental benefits.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".