IEEE Access (Jan 2021)

Deep Learning and Time-Series Analysis for the Early Detection of Lost Circulation Incidents During Drilling Operations

  • Mohammad Aljubran,
  • Jothibasu Ramasamy,
  • Mohammed Albassam,
  • Arturo Magana-Mora

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3082557
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 9
pp. 76833 – 76846

Abstract

Read online

Drilling operations consist of breaking the rock to deepen a wellbore for oil or gas extraction. A drilling fluid, circulating from the surface through the drill pipe and from the annulus to the surface, is used to remove rock cuttings and maintain hydrostatic pressure. Drilling fluid lost circulation incidents (LCIs) are major sources of non-productive time (NPT) in drilling operations. These incidents occur due to preexisting natural fractures (vugs, caverns, etc.) and/or drilling-induced hydraulic fractures. The initiation of an LCI could lead to other hazardous drilling phenomena, such as formation influx or kick/blowout, stuck pipe incidents, among others. LCIs are typically monitored at the rig site by observing drilling fluid levels in the fluid tanks. This manual process incurs missing the occurrence or late detection of LCIs. Machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) classification algorithms are powerful in processing time-series data and achieving early detection of such temporal phenomena. In this study, we performed a large-scale analysis of the surface drilling and rheology data obtained from historical wells with LCIs. This analysis includes primary and secondary preprocessing steps including, aggressive sampling, feature engineering, and window normalization to derive generalizable DL models for real-time operations. Focal loss was utilized to account for data class imbalance and train robust and generalizable models. The results obtained from different ML/DL algorithms showed that one-dimensional convolutional neural network models resulted in the best performance with state-of-the-art precision, recall, and F1 scores of 87.34%, 73.40%, and 79.77%, respectively, on unseen test drilling data.

Keywords