MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4410303725 · doi:10.2118/225148-ms

Development of Automated Real-Time Drilling Hazards Analysis Platform to Help Manage Drilling Parameters for Safe and Efficient Drilling

2025· article· en· W4410303725 on OpenAlexaff
Wajih Hasan, Abdur Rahman Misbah, Muhammad Affan Uddin Ali Khan, Aliza Hussain, Zayan Khursheed, Shaine Muhammadali Laliji, Syed Imran Ali, Clifford Louis, Muhammad Sami Khan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDrilling and Well Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDrillingMeasurement while drillingComputer sciencePetroleum engineeringEmbedded systemGeologyEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The objective of this paper is to find optimum ways to simply display entire drilling information and details of a particular well in real-time from well-sites to offices and/or headquarters of any oil and gas company that is operating the drilling equipment or has taken the drilling equipment on rental basis to carry out drilling activities. During drilling activities, it is often the case that one is faced with several problems. These problems are both of mechanical and chemical nature. Some of the main parameters such as ECD, T & D, and borehole cleaning have to be monitored constantly so as to provide better insight as to when a particular issue may occur in the wellbore. Poor ECD management may result in several problems such as kicks and blowouts. Torque and drag occurs usually in low-angle wells where the downward friction and sliding force affects the drill-string. Borehole cleaning refers to carrying out the drilled cuttings back to the surface. If this is not taken care of, it could block the borehole which would subsequently affect the drill-string up-to the bit. An algorithm is defined by inputting various parameters which affect the aforementioned drilling processes. These are then fed into MATLAB. The appropriate flowchart that the algorithm will follow is defined through the "State-flow Chart" option in MATLAB. The same work is then carried out through Excel where conditional formatting is used to establish limits and format the data accordingly. This is subsequently effectively carried out through Pivot Tables and Slicers which aid in making Dashboards in Excel. The warning signals are input in the dashboard through Visual Basic for Applications (VBA) code and assigning the code to buttons. After this, the same work is shifted to Python through a Jupyter Notebook. Here, our Excel database is connected to the notebook through SQL Server Management Studio. After the alerting stage, training of ECD data through machine learning models is carried out along with necessary charts and graphs related to ECD for dashboard construction. The purpose of this paper is to accurately predict primary and secondary drilling parameters as well as to undertake real-time intervention in order to save costs, resources and man-power.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.005

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDrilling and Well Engineering→French-language works237,207→