Home / 2020 / Physics-based, deep learning model improves screen-out predictions

Physics-based, deep learning model improves screen-out predictions

Study shows ensemble model incorporating elements of neural networks and inverse slope method provided more accurate advanced warnings during frac jobs

By Stephen Whitfield, Associate Editor

Screen-outs usually occur when proppants carried in fracturing fluid create a bridge across the perforations in a fracture or similar restricted flow area, creating a sudden and significant restriction to fluid flow that causes a rapid rise in pump pressure. This condition can cause significant disruption to a hydraulic fracturing operation, delaying the placement of subsequent stages and wellbore cleanout operations and, ultimately, leading to lost production days.

Because of that potential impact, advanced warning of screen-out is critical to improving operational safety and efficiency, according to Dr John Sun, Senior Data Scientist at Noble Energy. Speaking at the 2020 Unconventional Resources Technology Conference in July, Dr Sun discussed how his company has evaluated the use of machine learning in combination with existing methods to improve screen-out predictions during frac treatments.

The methods currently used to predict screen-out often rely on either post-minifrac diagnostics or pure physics-based modeling approaches, which Dr Sun said are not always appropriate for real-time application. A number of physics-based approaches have been developed to predict screen-out to some degree, such as the inverse slope method, which involves the visual inspection of the slopes of surface pressure plots during frac treatments.

While these approaches can be effective, they leave a lot of room for improvement in terms of accuracy. For instance, the inverse slope method can produce false positives and false negatives, making it difficult for operators to make decisions in real time, Dr Sun said.

“We see these false positives, in part because the inverse slope model is very sensitive to changes in surface pressure, and it’s only visually inspecting the pressure alone,” Dr Sun said. “The model ignores other changes in the formation, such as proppant concentration and the flow rate, that can affect surface pressure.”

Deep neural network-based approaches have been useful for predicting screen-outs, especially in terms of anomaly detection. The model Dr Sun discussed was a combination of physics-based inverse slope model and CNN-LSTM (convolutional neural network-long short-term memory) network architecture. It is a type of deep learning system used to generate textual descriptions of images to help reduce false positives and false negatives.

Dr Sun said combining the two modeling methods can provide more accurate advance warnings of screen-out from real-time pumping data.

Noble utilized three predictive models as part of its test of the ensemble model – a physics-based inverse slope model, a baseline LSTM model and a CNN-LSTM model – using input datasets from different formations and geological areas in the Niobrara-DJ Basin.

Results from each model were validated against one another, and the input datasets were then run in an ensemble model that incorporated elements of the other models to establish whether that ensemble model could make more accurate predictions of screen-outs than any of the models could individually.

The test showed the inverse slope model’s predictions aligned well with observations from the field, indicating its ability to identify pressure spikes and provide warnings in real time. However, two of the three pressure spikes measured were false positives.

The machine learning models did not show false positives, but the screen-out predictions were still mixed. The CNN-LSTM model showed noticeable improvement over the baseline LSTM model in the validation dataset; true positive rate of screen-out prediction improved from 57% for the baseline model to 74% for the LSTM, and true negative rate rose from 89% to 94%. However, it did not perform as well with the test dataset, with the true positive rate dropping from 86% to 76% and the true negative rate dropping from 100% to 90%.

Noble utilized weighted averages of the inverse slope model and the CNN-LSTM model to build its ensemble model, which outperformed the other models in terms of true positive rate, true negative rate and false positives. The true positive rate of screen-out prediction from the test dataset increased to 95%, and the true negative rate of increased to 96%. DC

About The Author

Stephen Whitfield is a graduate of Rice University, where he holds a bachelor’s degree in history. He has been writing for Drilling Contractor since 2020.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*