journal article·2024-11-13Open access

Advancing Geotechnical Evaluation of Wellbores: A Robust and Precise Model for Predicting Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS) of Rocks in Oil and Gas Wells

Mohammadali Ahmadi

Applied Sciences· Volume 14· Issue 22

Abstract

This study examines the efficacy of various machine learning models for predicting the uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) of rocks in oil and gas wells, which are essential for ensuring wellbore stability and optimizing drilling operations. The investigation encompasses Linear Regression, ensemble methods (including Random Forest, Gradient Boosting, XGBoost, and LightGBM), support vector machine-based regression (SVM-SVR), and multilayer perceptron artificial neural network (MLP-ANN) models. The results demonstrate that XGBoost and Gradient Boosting offer superior predictive accuracy for UCS in drillability, as indicated by low Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) values of 3.87% and 4.18%, respectively, and high R2 scores (0.8542 for XGBoost). These models emerge as optimal choices for UCS prediction focused on drillability, offering increased accuracy and reliability in practical engineering scenarios. Ensemble methods and MLP-ANN emerge as frontrunners, providing valuable tools for improving wellbore stability assessments, optimizing drilling parameter selection, and facilitating informed decision-making processes in oil and gas drilling operations. Moreover, this study lays a foundation for further research in drillability-centred predictive modelling for geotechnical parameters, advancing our understanding of rock behaviour under drilling conditions.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Drilling and Well Engineering · Hydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis · Rock Mechanics and Modeling

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, University of Calgary, 2500 University Dr. NW, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada

References (41)

Show source-provided references
1. Compressive and tensile failure of inclined well bores and determination of in situ stress and rock strength10.1029/95JB00319 ↗
2. Yurdakul, M., Ceylan, H., and Akdas, H. (2011, January 26–29). A predictive model for uniaxial compressive strength of carbonate rocks from Schmidt hardness. Proceedings of the 45th U.S. Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium, San Francisco, CA, USA.
3. Raaen, A., Hovem, K., Joranson, H., and Fjaer, E. (1996, January 6–9). FORMEL: A step forward in strength logging. Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, CO, USA.10.2118/36533-MS ↗
4. Nabaei, M., Shahbazi, K., and Shadravan, A. (2010, January 24–26). Uncertainty analysis in unconfined rock compressive strength prediction. Proceedings of the SPE Deep Gas Conference and Exhibition, Manama, Bahrain.10.2118/131719-MS ↗
5. Petunin, V.V., Yin, X., and Tutuncu, A.N. (2011, January 15–17). Porosity and permeability changes in sandstones and carbonates under stress and their correlation to rock texture. Proceedings of the SPE Canada Unconventional Resources Conference, Calgary, AB, Canada.10.2118/147401-MS ↗
6. Empirical relations between rock strength and physical properties in sedimentary rocks10.1016/j.petrol.2006.01.003 ↗
7. Militzer, H., and Stoll, R. (1973). Einige Beiträge der Geophysik zur Primärdatenerfassung im Bergbau, Neue Bergbautechnik.
8. Rzhevskiĭ, V., and Novik, G. (1971). The Physics of Rocks, Mir Publichers.
9. Resultaty primeneia appartury akusticeskogo karotasa dlja predeleina proconstych svoistv gornych porod na mestorosdeniaach tverdych isjopaemych
10. A new approach for predrilling the unconfined rock compressive strength prediction10.1080/10916461003752546 ↗
11. Rampersad, P., Hareland, G., and Boonyapaluk, P. Drilling optimization using drilling data and available technologyIn Proceedings of the SPE Latin America and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 27–29 April 1994.10.2118/27034-MS ↗
12. Penetration-rate performance of roller-cone bits10.2118/13259-PA ↗
13. Wu, A., Hareland, G., Lei, L., Lin, Y., and Yang, Y. (2013, January 5–7). Modeling and prediction of cone rotary speed of roller cone bits. Proceedings of the SPE Canada Unconventional Resources Conference, Calgary, AB, Canada.10.2118/167143-MS ↗
14. Application of genetic programing technique for predicting uniaxial compressive strength using reservoir formation properties10.1016/j.petrol.2017.09.032 ↗
15. Artificial neural network (ANN) approach to predict unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of oil and gas well cement reinforced with nanoparticles10.1016/j.jngse.2021.103816 ↗
16. Real-time prediction of tensile and uniaxial compressive strength from artificial intelligence-based correlations10.1007/s12517-022-10785-0 ↗
17. Estimation of tensile and uniaxial compressive strength of carbonate rocks from well-logging data: Artificial intelligence approach10.1007/s13202-023-01707-1 ↗
18. Drilling model for soft-formation bits10.2118/8438-PA ↗
19. Hareland, G., and Hoberock, L. (1993, January 22–25). Use of drilling parameters to predict in-situ stress bounds. Proceedings of the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.10.2118/25727-MS ↗
20. Hareland, G., and Rampersad, P. (1994, January 27–29). Drag-bit model including wear. Proceedings of the SPE Latin America and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Buenos Aires, Argentina.10.2118/26957-MS ↗
21. Winters, W., Warren, T., and Onyia, E. (1987, January 27–30). Roller bit model with rock ductility and cone offset. Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, USA.10.2523/16696-MS ↗
22. Hareland, G., and Nygaard, R. (2007, January 27–31). Calculating unconfined rock strength from drilling data. Proceedings of the 1st Canada-US Rock Mechanics Symposium, Vancouver, BC, Canada.10.1201/NOE0415444019-c216 ↗
23. Hope, T.M. (2020). Linear regression. Machine Learning, Elsevier.10.1016/B978-0-12-815739-8.00004-3 ↗
24. Montgomery, D.C., Peck, E.A., and Vining, G.G. (2021). Introduction to Linear Regression Analysis, John Wiley & Sons.
25. Robust linear regression for high-dimensional data: An overview10.1002/wics.1524 ↗
26. Genuer, R., Poggi, J.-M., Genuer, R., and Poggi, J.-M. (2020). Random Forests, Springer.10.1007/978-3-030-56485-8 ↗
27. Random forest regression for improved mapping of solar irradiance at high latitudes10.1016/j.solener.2020.01.034 ↗
28. Decision trees and random forests. Encyclopedia of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
29. Random forests10.1023/A:1010933404324 ↗
30. A comparison among interpretative proposals for Random Forests
31. A data-driven shale gas production forecasting method based on the multi-objective random forest regression10.1016/j.petrol.2020.107801 ↗
32. Random forests for global sensitivity analysis: A selective review10.1016/j.ress.2020.107312 ↗
33. A practical tutorial on bagging and boosting based ensembles for machine learning: Algorithms, software tools, performance study, practical perspectives and opportunities10.1016/j.inffus.2020.07.007 ↗
34. Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine10.1214/aos/1013203451 ↗
35. A comparative analysis of gradient boosting algorithms10.1007/s10462-020-09896-5 ↗
36. Least squares support vector machine classifiers10.1023/A:1018628609742 ↗
37. Chaos control using least-squares support vector machines10.1002/(SICI)1097-007X(199911/12)27:6<605::AID-CTA86>3.0.CO;2-Z ↗
38. Prediction breakthrough time of water coning in the fractured reservoirs by implementing low parameter support vector machine approach10.1016/j.fuel.2013.09.071 ↗
39. Evolving smart approach for determination dew point pressure through condensate gas reservoirs10.1016/j.fuel.2013.10.010 ↗
40. Evolving artificial neural network and imperialist competitive algorithm for prediction oil flow rate of the reservoir10.1016/j.asoc.2012.10.009 ↗
41. Rzhevskii, V.V., and Novik, G.Y. (1967). Fundamentals of the Physics of Rocks, Nedra.