MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415777459 · doi:10.2118/229248-ms

Machine Learning Based Operator-Assisted Closed Loop Optimization of Sucker Rod Pumps for Intelligent Automation

2025· article· W4415777459 on OpenAlexaff
Abhishek Kumar Mishra, Brett Garrison, John Chris T. Kwong, Amr El-Bakry

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicOil and Gas Production Techniques
Canadian institutionsImperial Oil (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutomationSucker rodWorkflowField (mathematics)Reliability (semiconductor)Controller (irrigation)Rotational speedProduction (economics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Real-time optimization of sucker rod pump operation is essential for maximizing production and reducing operational costs in oilfields. Frequent manual speed adjustments are impractical for fields with thousands of producing wells. This paper addresses these challenges by proposing a semi-closed loop system for intelligent automation of Variable Frequency Drive (VFD) operated sucker rod pumps using machine learning based fillbase prediction. The main goal is to enhance operational efficiency while mitigating risks, by incorporating human oversight for improved safety and reliability in remote oilfield operations. The proposed system integrates VFD-based speed control with ML-driven fillbase prediction (XGBoost), using dynamometer card analysis to determine pump fillage and further adjusts pump speed automatically to achieve the target fillage. A recommendation workflow monitors card quality, speed fluctuations, and alerts operators to anomalies such as persistent bad/no pump cards or significant speed changes. This ensures timely human intervention for safe operations. Various mechanisms like operator-set speed thresholds, snoozing of false recommendations, and feedback capture lead to continuous system refinement. A field trial validates this machine learning based approach and demonstrates its effectiveness in real-world conditions while maintaining operational safety and efficiency. The field trial conducted on 264 wells demonstrated significant improvements across multiple operational metrics. Production analysis revealed that 78 wells (approximately 30% of the test group) achieved an average 35% production uplift through automated speed increases, while 165 wells (62% of the test group) realized 30% power savings from optimized speed reductions. The system's ability to maintain operations around the ideal fillage or "sweet spot" not only enhanced production per unit power consumption, but also improved rod load management, thus reducing mechanical stress and extending equipment lifespan. From an operational standpoint, the solution achieved 90% reduction in manual surveillance requirements, effectively saving one full-time equivalent (FTE) workload while maintaining operational reliability. Notably, the human-in-the-loop feedback mechanism proved particularly useful, with operators intervening in only 12% of the cases where the system flagged potential anomalies or speed constrained operations. These interventions prevented potential issues while allowing the automated system to handle routine optimization. The trial also revealed that the wells operating at speed limits for extended period benefited from targeted recommendations, enabling operators to make informed adjustments. Overall, the results validate that this semi-automated approach successfully balances the benefits of AI-driven optimization with the critical need for operator oversight in oilfield operations. This hybrid approach enhances production, reduces power consumption, and mitigates operational risks, thus enabling intelligent oilfield operations. By balancing automation with human validation, the system ensures robust operations and high operational efficiency, thus marking a significant advancement in AI-augmented operational excellence in the area of oilfield automation.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOil and Gas Production TechniquesFrench-language works237,207