Digital Well-Control Twin for Pressure-Window Management, Kick and Loss Risk Assessment, and Hybrid Bottom-Hole Pressure Prediction
Source abstract
Abstract
Well control during drilling requires continuous assessment of bottom-hole pressure (BHP) relative to the pressure window bounded by formation and fracture pressures. This study presents a reduced-order, physics-guided digital-twin framework for well-control decision support, kick and loss risk assessment, and hybrid BHP prediction. The framework is intended as a computational decision-support prototype rather than a fully deployed, real-time, field-validated digital twin. It combines pressure-window calculations, dimensionless risk indices, bounded machine-learning correction, scenario-based event simulation, an interactive engineering dashboard, and 3D safety-envelope visualization. The machine-learning layer was trained on a predominantly augmented drilling dataset containing 909 cases, including nine field-related baseline records and 900 synthetically generated cases, and was used as a constrained correction mechanism rather than a replacement for the physics-based model. On the held-out test set, the BHP regression model achieved R2 = 0.987, MAE = 108.6 psi, and RMSE = 215.7 psi, while the well-control status classifier achieved an accuracy of 98.35%. Scenario simulations reproduced representative kick-prone and loss-prone conditions and tracked the evolution of BHP, the Pressure Safety Index, the Kick Risk Index, and the Loss Risk Index. The results show that the proposed workflow can identify underbalanced states, quantify pressure margins, evaluate mud-weight sensitivity, and support visual interpretation of well-control risk. Further field validation, real-time data integration, uncertainty quantification, and robustness testing are required before operational deployment.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Drilling and Well Engineering · Hydraulic Fracturing and Reservoir Analysis · Reservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Institute of Metallurgy and Ore Beneficiation, Satbayev University, 22a Satbaev Str., Almaty 050013, Kazakhstan
Funding
the Science Committee of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Republic of Kazakhstan
References (80)
Show source-provided references
1. Bourgoyne, A.T., Millheim, K.K., Chenevert, M.E., and Young, F.S. (1986). Applied Drilling Engineering, Society of Petroleum Engineers. SPE Textbook Series.10.2118/9781555630010 ↗
2. Mitchell, R.F., and Miska, S.Z. (2011). Fundamentals of Drilling Engineering, Society of Petroleum Engineers. SPE Textbook Series.10.2118/9781555632076 ↗
3. Aadnoy, B.S. (2010). Modern Well Design, CRC Press. [2nd ed.].10.1201/b10431 ↗
4. Rabia, H. (1985). Oilwell Drilling Engineering: Principles and Practice, Graham & Trotman.
5. Grace, R.D. (2017). Blowout and Well Control Handbook, Gulf Professional Publishing. [2nd ed.].
6. American Petroleum Institute (2018). API Standard 53: Blowout Prevention Equipment Systems for Drilling Wells, API. [5th ed.].
7. American Petroleum Institute (2006). API Recommended Practice 59: Well Control Operations, API. [2nd ed.].
8. American Petroleum Institute (2017). API Recommended Practice 92M: Managed Pressure Drilling Operations with Surface Back-Pressure, API. [1st ed.].
9. American Petroleum Institute (2008). API Recommended Practice 92U: Underbalanced Drilling Operations, API. [2nd ed.].
10. American Petroleum Institute (2013). API Recommended Practice 96: Deepwater Well Design and Construction, API. [1st ed.].
11. (2017). Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries—Well Integrity—Part 1: Life Cycle Governance (Standard No. ISO 16530-1).
12. (2021). Well Integrity in Drilling and Well Operations, Revision 5 (Standard No. NORSOK D-010).
13. Rehm, B., Schubert, J., Haghshenas, A., Paknejad, A.S., and Hughes, J. (2008). Managed Pressure Drilling, Gulf Publishing Company.
14. Safety and risk analysis of managed pressure drilling operation using Bayesian network10.1016/j.ssci.2015.01.010 ↗
15. Mayani, M.G., Rommetveit, R., Oedegaard, S.I., and Svendsen, M. (2018, January 12–15). Drilling Automated Realtime Monitoring Using Digital Twin. Proceedings of the SPE Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. SPE-192807-MS.
16. Anjos, J.L., Aranha, P.E., Martins, A.L., Oliveira, F.L., Goncalves, C.J., Silva, D.R., Dudek, C.L., and Lima, C.B. (2020, January 4–7). Digital Twin for Well Integrity with Real Time Surveillance. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA. OTC-30574-MS.10.4043/30574-MS ↗
17. Vrabie, I., Spesivtsev, P., Kaipov, Y., Syresin, D., Lomukhin, A., Romashkin, S., and Kulyatin, O. (2020, January 26–29). Digital Twin for Downhole Pressure Gauges: Model and Field Case Study. Proceedings of the SPE Russian Petroleum Technology Conference, Moscow, Russia. SPE-201926-MS.10.2118/201926-MS ↗
18. Rommetveit, R., Mayani, M.G., Nabavi, J., Helgeland, S., Hammer, R., and Raen, J. (2019, January 11–14). Automatic Realtime Monitoring of Drilling Using Digital Twin Technologies Enhance Safety and Reduce Costs. Proceedings of the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. SPE-197465-MS.10.2118/197465-MS ↗
19. Grieves, M. (2014). Digital Twin: Manufacturing Excellence Through Virtual Factory Replication, Florida Institute of Technology.
20. Glaessgen, E., and Stargel, D. (2012, January 23–26). The Digital Twin Paradigm for Future NASA and U.S. Air Force Vehicles. Proceedings of the 53rd AI-AA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, Honolulu, HI, USA.10.2514/6.2012-1818 ↗
21. Digital Twin in Industry: State-of-the-Art10.1109/TII.2018.2873186 ↗
22. Digital Twin in Manufacturing: A Categorical Literature Review and Classification10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.08.474 ↗
23. Digital Twin: Values, Challenges and Enablers from a Modeling Perspective10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2970143 ↗
24. Digital Twin: Enabling Technologies, Challenges and Open Research10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2998358 ↗
25. Characterising the Digital Twin: A Systematic Literature Review10.1016/j.cirpj.2020.02.002 ↗
26. Digital Twin and Big Data Towards Smart Manufacturing and Industry 4.0: 360 Degree Comparison10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2793265 ↗
27. A Review of the Roles of Digital Twin in CPS-Based Production Systems10.1016/j.promfg.2017.07.198 ↗
28. Hehenberger, P., and Bradley, D. (2016). Digital Twin—The Simulation Aspect. Mechatronic Futures, Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-32156-1 ↗
29. Reengineering Aircraft Structural Life Prediction Using a Digital Twin
30. Toward a Theory of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems10.1518/001872095779049543 ↗
31. Hasan, A.R., and Kabir, C.S. (2002). Fluid Flow and Heat Transfer in Wellbores, Society of Petroleum Engineers.
32. Brill, J.P., and Mukherjee, H. (1999). Multiphase Flow in Wells, Society of Petroleum Engineers.
33. A Study of Two-Phase Flow in Inclined Pipes10.2118/4007-PA ↗
34. Pressure Drop in Wells Producing Oil and Gas10.2118/72-03-04 ↗
35. Pressure Drop Correlations for Inclined Two-Phase Flow10.1115/1.3231233 ↗
36. Shoham, O. (2006). Mechanistic Modeling of Gas-Liquid Two-Phase Flow in Pipes, Society of Petroleum Engineers.10.2118/9781555631079 ↗
37. Ishii, M., and Hibiki, T. (2010). Thermo-Fluid Dynamics of Two-Phase Flow, Springer. [2nd ed.].10.1007/978-1-4419-7985-8 ↗
38. Study of the Transient Terrain-Induced and Severe Slugging Problems by Use of the Drift-Flux Model10.2118/186105-PA ↗
39. Random Forests10.1023/A:1010933404324 ↗
40. Greedy Function Approximation: A Gradient Boosting Machine10.1214/aos/1013203451 ↗
41. Chen, T., and Guestrin, C. (2016). XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, San Francisco, CA, USA, 13–17 August 2016, Association for Computing Machinery.10.1145/2939672.2939785 ↗
42. Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python
43. Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., and Friedman, J. (2009). The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction, Springer. [2nd ed.].10.1007/978-0-387-84858-7 ↗
44. Bishop, C.M. (2006). Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning, Springer.
45. Murphy, K.P. (2012). Machine Learning: A Probabilistic Perspective, MIT Press.
46. Physics-Informed Neural Networks: A Deep Learning Framework for Solving Forward and Inverse Problems Involving Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations10.1016/j.jcp.2018.10.045 ↗
47. Physics-Informed Machine Learning10.1038/s42254-021-00314-5 ↗
48. Integrating Scientific Knowledge with Machine Learning for Engineering and Environ-mental Systems
49. Deep Learning and Process Understanding for Data-Driven Earth System Science10.1038/s41586-019-0912-1 ↗
50. Discovering Governing Equations from Data by Sparse Identification of Nonlinear Dynamical Systems10.1073/pnas.1517384113 ↗
51. Lundberg, S.M., and Lee, S.-I. (2017). A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Curran Associates.
52. Ribeiro, M.T., Singh, S., and Guestrin, C. (2016). Why Should I Trust You? Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, San Francisco, CA, USA, 13–17 August 2016, Association for Computing Machinery.10.1145/2939672.2939778 ↗
53. Gilpin, L.H., Bau, D., Yuan, B.Z., Bajwa, A., Specter, M., and Kagal, L. (2019). Explaining Explanations: An Overview of Interpretability of Machine Learning. Proceedings of the IEEE 5th International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics, Turin, Italy, 1–3 October 2018, IEEE.10.1109/DSAA.2018.00018 ↗
54. Molnar, C. (2022). Interpretable Machine Learning: A Guide for Making Black Box Models Explainable, Leanpub. [2nd ed.].
55. Stop Explaining Black Box Machine Learning Models for High Stakes Decisions and Use Interpretable Models Instead10.1038/s42256-019-0048-x ↗
56. Osman, E.A., and Aggour, M.A. (2005, January 12–15). Artificial Neural Network Model for Predicting Bottomhole Flowing Pressure in Vertical Multiphase Flow. Proceedings of the SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference, Bahrain. SPE-93632-MS.10.2118/93632-MS ↗
57. Predicting Bottomhole Pressure in Vertical Multiphase Flowing Wells Using Artificial Neural Networks10.1016/j.petrol.2010.11.019 ↗
58. A Predictive Model for Steady-State Multiphase Pipe Flow: Machine Learning on Laboratory Data10.1016/j.petrol.2019.05.055 ↗
59. A Machine Learning Approach for Virtual Flow Metering and Forecasting10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.06.376 ↗
60. Reservoir Simulation and Modeling Based on Artificial Intelligence and Data Mining10.1016/j.jngse.2011.08.003 ↗
61. Bikbulatov, S.M. (2015, January 26–28). Improvement of the Well Performance Optimization Methodology Based on Integrated Modeling. Proceedings of the SPE Russian Petroleum Technology Conference, Moscow, Russia. SPE-176581-MS.10.2118/176581-RU ↗
62. Kuvichko, A., Misyura, S., Zyuzin, V., Istomin, S., Kalistratov, A., Kuznetsov, M., and Igitov, S. (2019, January 22–24). Field-Scale Automatic Facies Classification Using Machine Learning Algorithms. Proceedings of the SPE Russian Petroleum Technology Conference, Moscow, Russia. SPE-196860-MS.10.2118/196860-MS ↗
63. Artificial Intelligence in Oil and Gas Upstream: Trends, Challenges, and Scenarios for the Future10.1016/j.egyai.2020.100041 ↗
64. Hollnagel, E. (2004). Barriers and Accident Prevention, Ashgate.
65. Reason, J. (1997). Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents, Ashgate.
66. Quantitative Risk Analysis of Oil and Gas Drilling, Using Deepwater Horizon as Case Study10.1016/j.ress.2011.12.002 ↗
67. Dynamic Safety Analysis of Process Systems by Mapping Bow-Tie into Bayesian Network10.1016/j.psep.2012.01.005 ↗
68. Dynamic Safety Risk Analysis of Offshore Drilling10.1016/j.jlp.2014.05.002 ↗
69. McKinney, W. (July, January 28). Data Structures for Statistical Computing in Python. Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, Austin, TX, USA.
70. Matplotlib: A 2D Graphics Environment10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 ↗
71. Array Programming with NumPy10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 ↗
72. SciPy 1.0: Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 ↗
73. Plotly Technologies Inc. (2015). Collaborative Data Science, Plotly Technologies Inc.
74. Seaborn: Statistical Data Visualization10.21105/joss.03021 ↗
75. Zoback, M.D. (2007). Reservoir Geomechanics, Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511586477 ↗
76. Fjaer, E., Holt, R.M., Horsrud, P., Raaen, A.M., and Risnes, R. (2008). Petroleum Related Rock Mechanics, Elsevier. [2nd ed.].
77. Economides, M.J., Watters, L.T., and Dunn-Norman, S. (1998). Petroleum Well Construction, John Wiley & Sons.
78. Byrom, T.G. (2015). Casing and Liners for Drilling and Completion, Gulf Professional Publishing. [2nd ed.].
79. American Petroleum Institute (2006). API Recommended Practice 90: Annular Casing Pressure Management for Offshore Wells, API. [1st ed.].
80. International Association of Oil & Gas Producers (2018). Report 476: Recommendations for Enhancements to Well Control Training, Examination and Certification, IOGP.