SPE 133929

Transforming Data into Knowledge using Data Mining Techniques: Application

in Water Production Problem Diagnosis in Oil Wells
M. Rabiei and R. Gupta, Curtin University of Technology, Y.P. Cheong and G.A. Sanchez Soto, CSIRO, Earth Science
and Resource Engineering

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, 18–20 October 2010.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been reviewed
by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or
members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is
restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Excess water production is a serious economic and
environmental problem in most mature oil fields. Accurate
and timely diagnosis of the water production mechanism is
critical in the success of the applied treatment methodology.
While many empirical techniques have been traditionally
used in production data analysis, the significance of water-
oil ratio (WOR) in proper identification of the type of the
water production problem in oil wells is not yet fully
investigated. Data mining techniques could facilitate
extracting any hidden predictive information from oil and
water production data to be used in water control studies.
This paper applies a meta learning classification
technique called Logistic Model Trees (LMT) to diagnose
water production mechanisms based on WOR data and static
reservoir parameters. Synthetic reservoir models are built to
simulate excess water production due to coning, channeling
and gravity segregated flows. Various cases are then
generated by varying some of the input parameters in each
model. A number of key features from plots of WOR against
oil recovery factor are heuristically extracted by segmenting
these plots at certain points. LMT classifiers are then applied
to integrate these features with reservoir parameters to build
classification models for predicting the water production
mechanism in different scenarios of pre and post water-
production stages.
It is observed that a valid association between WOR data
and the water production mechanism exists. Our results with
high prediction accuracy rates of 88% for pre-production
and more than 94% for post-production stage demonstrate
efficiency of the proposed LMT classifiers and significance
of WOR values in classifying excess water production
problems.
Introduction
In recent years, as more amounts of data are
continuously measured and collected, unconventional and
intelligent mathematical and soft computing techniques
become more popular in the oil and gas industry (Nikravesh
2004; Aminzadeh 2005). Complex nature of the oil fields,
staggering volume and diversity of data and uncertainties
associated with it calls for more sophisticated techniques to
integrate various types of data, quantify uncertainties,
identify hidden patterns and extract useful information.
Data mining is one of the promising methodologies that
can offer great benefits to the oil industry by extracting
implicit, previously unknown and potentially useful
information from the huge amounts of raw data. This
technique is an iterative and interactive process, which uses
past and present information to discover previously
unknown patterns in the data, then trains and builds models
to predict future trends and behaviors (Kantardzic 2002).
Classification trees are one of the most popular classification
algorithms used in data mining. They are easy to use, simple
to understand and interpret, and require little data
preparation (Tomei 2008). The successful application of
tree-based ensemble classifiers in predicting water
production mechanisms, were established in previous studies
conducted by our group (Rabiei, Gupta et al. 2009; Rabiei,
Gupta et al. 2010).
In this study we explore another relatively new addition
to the tree-based classifiers called LMT, which combines the
linear logistic regression technique with classification tree
algorithms to produce more comprehensible tree structures
with higher accuracy. The significance of our current and
previous experiments in studying excess water production
mechanisms, is the different approach we have taken in
utilizing WOR diagnostic plots in diagnosing different types
2 SPE 133929
of water production problems. The deficiency of
conventional WOR diagnostic plots (Chan 1995) in proper
identification of the type of the water production problem in
oil wells has been demonstrated in Seright (1998) and Rabiei
et al. (2009). Nevertheless, many oil companies to date
apply the WOR diagnostic plots for water production studies
and problem diagnosis (Al Hasani, Khayari et al. 2008);
(Sanchez, Delgado et al. 2007). Although, in specific
circumstances, these plots might help in diagnosing between
two more common types of excess water production
problems, namely coning and channeling, they are by no
means general and applicable in all conditions (Seright
1998).
In our studies, we explore plots of WOR against the oil
recovery factor and use WOR feature subsets to extract
predictive data points from these plots to be used in the
classifier along with other reservoir parameters. Feature
extraction helps in removing irrelevant and redundant
information, which adversely affect the performance of the
classifier.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: we first
briefly introduce the LMT technique and then explain how
various simulated reservoir models were used to generate a
database for training and validating LMT classification
algorithms. Next we describe how feature parameters from
reservoir characteristics and production data were selected
and extracted and explain the process of building pre and
post-water-production classifier models. Finally, we present
the results and draw some conclusions.
Theory of Logistic Model Trees (LMT)
Logistic model trees (LMT) algorithm (Landwehr, Hall
et al. 2003) combines linear logistic regression and tree
induction algorithms in order to overcome the disadvantages
associated with the application of each of these methods
separately. Linear logistic regression process is quite stable
with low variance but potentially high bias. Tree induction
algorithm on the other hand, exhibits low bias but often high
variance (Landwehr 2003).
LMT generates a single classification tree with binary
splits on numeric attributes and logistic regression models at
the leaves. The algorithm uses a stagewise fitting process to
construct the logistic regression models by incrementally
refining the models constructed in higher levels. The LMT
tree is then pruned using the CART cross-validation based
pruning algorithm.
Experiment Setup
Mathematically a classifier can be defined as:
I(y) = f (x1, x 2,..., x m ) , where (x1, x 2,..., x m ) are the values
of the m input parameters (qualitative or quantitative) used
for classification and I(y) is an indicator random variable
taking the possible values of {1, 2, ..., r} , where each number
corresponds to a classification category out of r possible
categories.
To provide the training dataset for the LMT
classification algorithm, we use simulated reservoir models,
each corresponding to a different water production
mechanism. Reservoir input parameters in each model are
then varied to produce several instances of that model to be
included in the dataset.
Reservoir Simulation Models
Synthetic reservoir models (Fig. 1) were built to simulate
excess water production due to coning, channeling and
gravity segregated flows. Water coning occurs when the
water/oil contact locally rises toward the completed interval
of a well that normally produces from an oil column lying on
top of an active aquifer (Seright, 1998). Water channeling is
common when high permeability layers or fractures allow
early water breakthrough during water flooding (Seright
1998). These models were simulated using a commercial
reservoir simulation software (Roxar-Tempest).
Bottom water drive (water coning): A radial model with
a drainage area of 160 acres. The radius of this sector model
is 1490 ft with a total thickness of 300 ft, constant porosity
of 0.2 and a constant permeability of 1,000 mD. The oil
column is 100 ft thick with a 200 ft water column. A vertical
well is perforated at the top 20% of the 100 ft oil column
with a wellbore radius of 0.25 ft (Fig 1.a).
Edge water drive (water coning): A 3D Cartesian grid,
with an area of 1,500 ft x 1,700 ft, constant porosity of 0.2,
constant permeability of 1,000 mD, a true vertical thickness
of 100 ft and a dip angle of ~5 degree. A vertical well is
perforated to a true vertical depth of 50 ft above the OWC
(Fig 1.b).
Water injection (water channeling): A 3D Cartesian
grid of 1,000 ft x 1,000 ft with a reservoir thickness of 100 ft
and a constant porosity of 0.2. A pair of injector and
producer is placed at both ends of this sector model for a
direct line-drive water-flooding pattern. Three different
scenarios for small and large drainage area with different
combination of flow units are considered (Fig 1.c).
Edge water drive (water channeling): A 3D Cartesian
grid similar to the water coning (edge water drive) model
with a different location for the vertical well farther up dip.
The strong downdip aquifer provides the energy to sweep
the oil toward the updip producer. Two different scenarios
with different number of flow units and various
permeabilities are considered (Fig 1.d).
Bottom water drive with baffles in vertical direction: A
3D Cartesian model with baffles in the vertical direction. In
this model spherical thin impermeable layers (800 ft in
diameter) were randomly populated to act as zero
transmissibility in the vertical direction. It was observed that
cone forming is minimal and this model exhibits a
channeling behavior (Fig 1.e).
SPE 133929
(a)
(c)
(e)
Figure 1. Simulated reservoir models
Dataset generation
Running each base model with different reservoir
characteristics input parameters results in a new instance of
that model, from which a new case is formed to be included
in the dataset. We observed that some of the water injection
and edge water drive models with high Kv/Kh ratio and low
3
(b)
(d)
permeability layers, showed the gravity dominated flow or
water under-run problem (Bailey, Tyrie et al. 2000). These
cases are labeled as ‘GravityDominated’ in our study. Those
cases, where water production rate does not reach the
defined critical point of WOR equal to 0.1 (or 9% water cut)
in our analysis are labeled as ‘NoWater’ cases. These cases
are used as the control cases for investigating the efficiency
4 SPE 133929
of the classifier in identifying risk free situations. A total of
n =714 cases of the aforementioned models were generated
and for each case, WOR diagnostic plots were generated.
Each generated model represents a water production
mechanism and its associated reservoir and fluid properties.
Various reservoir characteristics, well conditions and
fluid properties are responsible in causing a water
production problem. In other words, each problem type case
is described by a set of input parameters and the resulted
WOR plots, which display characteristic trends of water and
oil production in that model.
Static imput parameters: At the first stage we use prior
domain knowledge, expert intuition and the available
literature to select the most plausible relevant input
parameters in causing water production problems. Typical
parameters selected at this stage are vertical to horizontal
permeability, API, wettability, well drainage area, aquifer
strength and water injection rate (Table 1). Further Analysis
of variance (ANOVA) test was conducted to confirm that the
average of the given input parameter was significantly
different across at least one of the classification group.
Table 1. Static reservoir parameters selected for inclusion in the
case structure
Variable Name Abbreviation
Vertical to horizontal permeability Kv/Kh
API API
Wettability WET
Initial oil flow rate IOFR
Plateau period for the initial oil flow rate PP
Drainage area DA
Aquifer strength – Water/oil volume AQWOV
Water injection rate WIR
Dynamic WOR parameters: In addition to the static
reservoir input parameters, new dynamic WOR parameters
are also introduced to be included in the case structure.
These dynamic features are extracted from the plots of WOR
versus the oil recovery factor (RF) associated with each
case. Unlike conventional WOR diagnostic studies that
focus on the trends of log/log plots of WOR (Chan 1995),
we explore plots of WOR against the oil recovery factor (a
dimensionless time, which is a ratio of cumulative oil being
produced versus oil in-place with a maximum of unity) and
extract predictive data points from these plots to be used in
the classifier along with other reservoir parameters. The use
of dimensionless time will enable better analyses and
comparisons of the WOR curves between models with a
wide range of drainage area, well operational histories, etc.
Evaluating the behavior of the WOR plots using the
conventional WOR diagnostic technique is qualitative and
can be biased by human judgment. In this study, we adopt a
quantitative approach in utilizing WOR data. However,
quantitative analysis of all the available WOR data can be a
complex and tedious task. In this work, we identify segments
of the WOR graph, where the gradient remains constant.
From these segments, we extract discrete RF values, which
are meaningful to the user and represent useful
characteristics of water and oil production rate with respect
to the oil recovery factor (Fig 2).
Figure 2. Sample plots of WOR against oil recovery factor for
different simulated reservoir models.
These points are denoted as RFWOR(0.1 to 40) (e.g. RFWOR0.1
represents the value of RF at WOR equal to 0.1). The RF
values below the point of WOR=0.1 are too small to yield
any helpful information and hence are discarded. The cut off
value point is at WOR equal to 40, which represents 97.5%
water cut. In total, 15 new dynamic input variables were
extracted in this manner. These input variables are sufficient
to capture the essential trend characteristics of the WOR
plots. Similar to the static parameters, the ANOVA
technique was used to assess the significance of the
extracted parameters in identifying water production
mechanism.
Case Structure
The selected static and dynamic parameters form the
structure of each case in the dataset. Each row in the dataset
matrix corresponds to an individual case of water production
mechanism, defined by a vector. Each vector consists of a
set of predictor parameters representing the selected static
and dynamic parameters and the associated water production
mechanism defined as the response parameter. The cases in
the dataset are then randomly sampled to form the training
and validating sets such that both training and validating
datasets have the same proportion of cases from each water
production mechanism class. The training set includes
approximately two thirds of the cases in the dataset and the
remaining cases form the validating set.
LMT Classifer Algorithms
Three different scenarios for building the classifiers are
considered and for each scenario, appropriate set of features
 SPE 133929
are used accordingly. In the first scenario, named pre-water-
production scenario, only the static reservoir parameters are
used. Such a model could be applied before a well starts
production to investigate the possible likelihood of a water
production problem in the future. The next two scenarios are
applicable after water break-through happens in the well. For
the second scenario, both static reservoir features and
dynamic WOR features are employed in order to investigate
the interaction between these features and the resulted effect
on problem diagnosis. The last scenario solely examines the
significance of WOR features in diagnosing the water
production mechanism without reflecting on the reservoir
characteristics.
Pre-Water-Production Scenario: The first scenario
considered for model generation is before the well starts
producing water. In this model, the predictor parameters are
the static reservoir parameters, which will be used for .
training different classifiers. The response parameter is the .
class of the water production mechanism, to which the .
classifier allocates the case. This model is a control model in
which only static parameters are incorporated without
including any dynamic production data. Such a model could
be used before the start of any water production to get a
rough estimation of the possibility of future excess water
production in the well. This model will be referred to as
Model #0 throughout this study
Post-Water-Production Scenario (1): Once the well
starts producing water, the behavioral trend of the WOR vs.
RF plot also starts to change. Instead of using all the
extracted dynamic features in just one model, we decided to
add these parameters sequentially and generate a separate
model for each stage of the water production cycle. This
would enable us to thoroughly examine the effect of the
extracted dynamic parameters in identifying the water
production mechanism. It would also define at which stage
of water production cycle, one is more likely to identify the
cause of water production more accurately. For this purpose,
a separate classifier model was implemented for each
dynamic parameter, while taking into account the history of
WOR trends before that specific point. This means for each
new model the next RFWOR parameter in sequence is added
to the predictor parameters already used in the previous
model.
• Model #1: all static variables + RFWOR0.1 + RFWOR0.5
• Model #2: all static variables + RFWOR0.1 + RFWOR0.5 + RFWOR1
• Model #3: all static variables + RFWOR0.1 + RFWOR0.5 + RFWOR1
+ RFWOR2
. Coning
. Actual
. Dominated
• Model #14: all static variables + RFWOR0.1 + RFWOR0.5 +
RFWOR1 + RFWOR2 + … + RFWOR40
5
Post-Water-Production Scenario (2): Similar to the
previous algorithm, another set of models were also built
using dynamic RFWOR parameters, except that static
parameters were discarded from these models. These models
will be used to demonstrate whether dynamic production
data alone can be effectively used with regards to identifying
water production mechanisms. If this hypothesis is feasible,
these models can be successfully used to diagnose water
production mechanism in situations where immediate access
to the static reservoir parameters is not possible. They can
also facilitate a quick evaluation of the problem at hand
without having to go through all the detailed information
related to the situation.
• Model #1*: RFWOR0.1 + RFWOR0.5
• Model #2*: RFWOR0.1 + RFWOR0.5 + RFWOR1
• Model #3*: RFWOR0.1 + RFWOR0.5 + RFWOR1 + RFWOR2
• Model #14*: RFWOR0.1 + RFWOR0.5 + RFWOR1 + RFWOR2 + … +
RFWOR40
Performance evaluation techniques
The learnt patterns from the cases in the training dataset
are applied to the remaining cases in the database to evaluate
the efficiency of the trained classifier in classifying each
case into one of coning, channeling, gravity dominated or
the no-water classes. The performance of each implemented
model is evaluated based on the classification accuracy and
also kappa coefficient.
Classification Accuracy: The first measure used for
evaluating the performance of the proposed models is the
percentage of correctly classified cases. Classification
accuracy (or its complement, misclassification error) is used
commonly for evaluating classifiers performance and
prediction algorithms. Confusion matrix is a matrix whose
rows represent the true classifications and columns represent
the classifications made by the algorithm. In the confusion
matrix shown in figure 3, classification accuracy is equal to
the total number of correctly classified cases
(P11+P22+P33+P44) devided by the total number of cases used
in the study.
Predicted
Channelling Coning
Gravity
NoWater
Dominated
Channelling P11 P12 P13 P14
P21 P22 P23 P24
Gravity
P31 P32 P33 P34
NoWater P41 P42 P43 P44
Figure 3. Confusion matrix
6 SPE 133929

Kappa coefficient: Despite the widely use of
classification accuracy measure, it is known in the machine-
learning community that this measure is not a perfect meter
and it has been demonstrated by Arie (2007) that a
classifier’s predictions may be due to mere chance. He states
that “classifiers’ accuracy should be compared after
compensating for random hits” and one way to do this is the
use of kappa coefficient (Cohen 1960). Cohen’s kappa
measures the agreement between two categorical variables
while taking in to account those successfully classified cases
that might be attributed to chance alone. Kappa coefficient
can range from 1.0 (perfect agreement) to -1.0 (complete
disagreement). A kappa value of zero indicates no agreement
above that expected by chance.
Area under the ROC curve (AUC): AUC is one of the
popular methods to measure the performance of a classifier.
The ROC curve (Reciever Operating Characteristic) is the
plot of the true positive against the false positive outputs.
The area under the ROC curve (AUC) measures the
probability that the classifier output for a randomly chosen
positive example is greater than the classifier output for a
randomly chosen negative example. Higher AUC represents
a better classification accuracy.
Results and Discussions
The cases in the dataset are randomly sampled to form
the training and validating sets such that both training and
validating datasets have the same proportion of cases from
each water production mechanism class. The training set
includes approximately two thirds of the cases in the dataset
and the remaining cases form the validating set. The learnt
patterns from the cases in the training dataset are then
applied to the validating dataset to evaluate the efficiency of
the trained classifier in classifying each case into one of
‘Coning’, ‘Channeling’, ‘GravityDominated’ or ‘NoWater’
categories. The tree structure of one of the trained classifiers
(Model#14*) is shown in figure 4.

RFWOR4 <= 0: LM_1: (76)

RFWOR4 > 0
| RFWOR0.1 <= 0.067503: LM_2: (51)
| RFWOR0.1 > 0.067503
| | RFWOR0.1 <= 0.252044
| | | RFWOR20 <= 0.452907: LM_3: (34)
| | | RFWOR20 > 0.452907: LM_4: (53)
| | RFWOR0.1 > 0.252044: LM_5: (89)
Channelling: -6.13 + [RFWOR0.1] * 9.84 +[RFWOR20] * -1.13 +[RFWOR30] * -3.5
LMT_1 Coning: -11.15 + [RFWOR0.1] * -14.88 +[RFWOR40] * 11.88
GravityDominated: -11.83 + [RFWOR0.5] * 8.73 +[RFWOR2] * -2.56 +[RFWOR20] * 4.71
NoWater: 15.96 + [RFWOR0.1] * 0.01 +[RFWOR40] * -41.21
Channelling: 5.73 + [RFWOR0.1] * 100.96 +[RFWOR0.5] * -0.27 +[RFWOR2] * 0.9 +[RFWOR4] * 0.51 +[RFWOR20] * -1.13 +[RFWOR30] * -5.85 +[RFWOR40] * -23.54
LMT_2 Coning: -2.1 + [RFWOR0.1] * -136.55 +[RFWOR2] * 0.52 +[RFWOR5] * 17.72 +[RFWOR40] * 14
GravityDominated: -10.46 + [RFWOR0.5] * 11.15 +[RFWOR2] * -6.03 +[RFWOR5] * -29.55 +[RFWOR20] * 21.72 +[RFWOR30] * 16.49
NoWater: -6.66 + [RFWOR40] * -40.88
Channelling: 497.76 + [RFWOR0.1] * -37.09 +[RFWOR0.5] * -1781.16 +[RFWOR2] * 10.79 +[RFWOR4] * 0.51 +[RFWOR7] * -4.38 +[RFWOR10] * -12.57 +[RFWOR20] *
-7.47 +[RFWOR30] * -5.85 +[RFWOR40] * 7.53
LMT_3 Coning: -14.71 + [RFWOR0.1] * -15.09 +[RFWOR1] * -0.02 +[RFWOR2] * 15.4 +[RFWOR3] * -9.43 +[RFWOR4] * -7.36 +[RFWOR7] * -0.02 +[RFWOR10] * 1.8 +[RFWOR20]
* 4.06 +[RFWOR30] * 1.43 +[RFWOR40] * 13.74
GravityDominated: -511.12 + [RFWOR0.1] * 67.44 +[RFWOR0.5] * 1845.21 +[RFWOR2] * -26 +[RFWOR7] * 2.41 +[RFWOR8] * 1.65 +[RFWOR9] * 4.46 +[RFWOR10] *
6.72 +[RFWOR20] * 10.34 +[RFWOR40] * -10.54
NoWater: -21.66 + [RFWOR2] * 0 +[RFWOR40] * -40.88
Channelling: 5.51 + [RFWOR0.1] * 10.7 +[RFWOR0.5] * -0.27 +[RFWOR1] * -2.6 +[RFWOR2] * 18.82 +[RFWOR3] * 2.67 +[RFWOR4] * 0.51 +[RFWOR7] * -4.38
+[RFWOR10] * -25.99 +[RFWOR20] * -7.47 +[RFWOR30] * -5.85 +[RFWOR40] * 14.59
LMT_4 Coning: -1.61+[RFWOR0.1]* -16.89+[RFWOR2] *16.66+[RFWOR3] * -12.92+[RFWOR4] * -7.36+[RFWOR10] * 6.8+[RFWOR20] * 6.21+[RFWOR30] * 1.43+[RFWOR40] * 0.17
GravityDominated: -5.19 + [RFWOR0.1] * -6.67 +[RFWOR0.5] * 20.56 +[RFWOR2] * -35.58 +[RFWOR7] * 2.41 +[RFWOR8] * 1.65 +[RFWOR9] * 4.46 +[RFWOR10] *
18.09 +[RFWOR20] * 10.34 +[RFWOR40] * -10.54
NoWater: -21.66 + [RFWOR2] * 0 +[RFWOR40] * -40.88
Channelling: 1.96 + [RFWOR0.1] * 15.76 +[RFWOR0.5] * -0.27 +[RFWOR1] * -10.26 +[RFWOR2] * 0.9 +[RFWOR4] * 0.51 +[RFWOR7] * -7.12 +[RFWOR10] * -5.97
+[RFWOR20] * -1.13 +[RFWOR30] * -5.85 +[RFWOR40] * 16.85
LMT_5 Coning: -22.18 + [RFWOR0.1] * -19.33 +[RFWOR2] * 6.04 +[RFWOR3] * -1.19 +[RFWOR4] * -3.9 +[RFWOR5] * -3.3 +[RFWOR6] * -6.54 +[RFWOR20] * 38.44 +[RFWOR30]
* 1.43 +[RFWOR40] * 14
GravityDominated: 4.14 + [RFWOR0.1] * -2.29 +[RFWOR0.5] * 11.15 +[RFWOR1] * 2.09 +[RFWOR2] * -1.1 +[RFWOR6] * 2.72 +[RFWOR7] * 2.41 +[RFWOR8] * 1.65
+[RFWOR9] * 4.46 +[RFWOR20] * 5.71 +[RFWOR40] * -28.99
NoWater: -14.16 + [RFWOR2] * 0 +[RFWOR40] * -40.88
Figure 4. The LMT structure of Model#14*
SPE 133929 7

Classification Accuracy and confirm the superiority of the models with both reservoir
The total classification performances for all the models characteristics and WOR feature data. We also observe an
in three scenrios are shown in figure 5. Comparing the result improvement in AUC scores as soon as WOR data are
of Model # 0 with a total accuracy of 87%, with Models # introduced to the models compared to Model # 0. This figure
(1-14) demonstrates the significance of the extracted WOR also indicates a redcution in AUC values in Models#(1*-
features in improving the classification performance. As was 14*) corresponding to “NoWater”, “Coning”, “Channeling”
expected, models in which both reservoir characteristics and and “GravityDominated” mechanisms, respectively.
WOR variables were used perform incredibly well with a
staggering accuracy of at least 94%. However, we see a
slight decrease in the performance of Models # (1*-14*), in
which only WOR variables were used, compared to Model
#0. This accuracy decrease stablishes the important role of
reservoir characteristics in water production studies.
In addition to the total accuracy, performance of each
model in classifying individual water production
mechanisms can also be studied (Table 2). The results show
that the “GravityDominated” cases are the most difficult and
the “NoWater” cases are the most successful ones to predict.
Nevertheless, the results suggest that as more water
producton data becomes available, diagnosing the
“GravityDominated” cases improves in both post-water-
production scenarios.
Figure 5. Classification accuracy for all models
Out of the 29 classifiers developed, only Model#0
performs poorly in classifying the “NoWater” cases, while it
represents similar performance in predicting other problem
categories. An interesting point is that while Models#(1-14)
and Models#(1*-14*) achieve compareable results in
predicting the channelling problem, we see a significant
decline in accuracy in predicting the coning problem using
Models#(1*-14*). This demonstrates the role of reservoir
characteristics in initiating and forming a water coning
problem in an oil well.

Kappa Coefficient
A more robust measure to show the efficiency of the
proposed LMT classifiers is the kappa coefficient. Kappa
values higher than 0.8 are usually considered as very good
agreement, disproving the role of chance. As shown in figure Figure 6. Kappa coefficient
6, the trend of any fluctuation in the kappa coefficients,
corresponds perfectly to the total classification accuracies
presented in figure 5. Models#(1-14) have all kappa values
greater than 0.9, which confirm the efficiency of the
proposed classification algorithm. Models without reservoir
parameters have slightly lower than 0.8 kappa coefficients
but they are still in a range considered as good agreement.
Model #0 also shows good agreement with a kappa of 0.8.

Evaluation of AUC
The AUC measures the ability of a classifier to rank data
points in order of decreasing probability of belonging to the
positive class. An AUC score of 1.0 represents a perfect
classifier, while random guessing produces an AUC of 0.5.
Figure 7 shows a comparison of AUC scores for all the LMT Figure 7. Comparison of AUC scores of LMT models in
models generated in this study. The AUC scores too are in predicting different water production mechanisms
complete agreement with the classification accuracy results
8 SPE 133929

Table 2. Classification accuracy for individual categories current study will be updated as more real field data and
Gravity No different types of water production mechanisms are made
Channelling Coning
Dominated Water
available. Similarly, the classifier models will be
Model # 0 89% 88% 67% 87%
97% 100% 67% 100%
redeveloped and updated using the new extended training
Model # 1
Model # 2 95% 100% 73% 100% dataset and will be validated through a range of techniques.
Model # 3 94% 100% 80% 100%
Model # 4 94% 100% 73% 100% References
Model # 5 95% 95% 73% 100%
Model # 6 95% 100% 80% 100% Al Hasani, M.A., Al Khayari, S.R., Al Maamari, R.S. and Al
Model # 7 90% 100% 80% 100% Wadhahi, M.A. 2008. Diagnosis of Excessive Water
Model # 8 95% 95% 73% 100% Production in Horizontal Wells Using WOR Plots. In
Model # 9 92% 100% 80% 100% International Petroleum Technology Conference, Kuala
Model # 10 97% 100% 80% 100% Lumpur, Malaysia.
Model # 11 95% 100% 80% 100%
Model # 12 95% 100% 80% 100% Aminzadeh, F. 2005. Application of AI and Soft Computing for
Model # 13 97% 100% 80% 100% Challenging Problems in the Oil Industry. Journal of
Model # 14 92% 100% 80% 100%
Petroleum Science and Technology, 47(1-2): 5-14.
Model # 1* 95% 84% 0% 100%
Model # 2* 95% 87% 0% 100%
Arie, B.D. 2007. A Lot of Randomness Is Hiding in Accuracy.
Model # 3* 90% 89% 0% 100%
Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 20(7):
Model # 4* 94% 87% 0% 100%
875-885.
Model # 5* 94% 86% 0% 100%
Model # 6* 97% 88% 0% 100%
Model # 7* 94% 84% 0% 100%
Bailey, B., Tyrie, J., Elphick, J., Kuchuk, F., Romano, C. and
Model # 8* 94% 84% 0% 100% Roodhart, L. 2000. Water Control. Oilfield Review,
Model # 9* 98% 86% 0% 100% Schlumberger, 12(1): 30-51.
Model # 10* 95% 84% 0% 100%
Model # 11* 95% 84% 0% 100% Chan, K. S. 1995. Water Control Diagnosis Plots. Paper SPE 30775
Model # 12* 95% 86% 0% 100% presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference &
Model # 13* 89% 84% 40% 100% Exhibition. Dallas, USA.
Model # 14* 73% 89% 38% 100%
Cohen, J. 1960. A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales.
Conclusion Educational and Psychological measurement, 20(1): 37-46.
To the best of our knowledge, the methodology Fulcher, J. 2008. Computational Intelligence: An Introduction.
presented in this study is the first attempt in extracting Studies in Computational Intelligence, Springer.
knowledge-rich WOR features and applying Logistic Model
Trees in water production diagnostics. Kantardzic, M. 2002. Data mining: concepts, models, methods and
In this paper we have described how dimension algorithms, John Wiley.
reduction techniques can be applied to extract the essential
and useful information from the huge amount of raw data Landwehr, N., Hall, M. and Frank, M. 2003. Logistic Model Trees.
available. The high classification accuracy results indicate In Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Machine
the important role of identification and extraction of relevant Learning, Croatia, 241-252. Springer-Verlag.
WOR features in diagnosing the type of water production Liu, H., Hussain, F., Tan, C.L. and Dash, M. 2002. Discretization.
mechanisms in oil wells. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 6: 393-423.
The findings reported here establish that the LMT
technique can still be successfully applied in situations Nikravesh, M. 2004. Soft Computing-Based Computational
where either reservoir information or water producton data Intelligent for Reservoir Characterization. Expert systems with
are not available. Although, the accuracy rates in these applications, 26(1): 19-38.
models are not as high as the models that use both sources of
information, they have a reasonable accuracy rate of at least Rabiei, M., Gupta, R, Cheong, Y.P. and Sanchez Soto, G.A. 2009.
84%. Our results reveal that WOR monitoring could also Excess Water Production Diagnosis in Oil Fields Using
Ensemble Classifiers. In International Conference on
help in predicting the type of the water production Computational Intelligence and Software Engineering.
mechanisms before the actual problem hitting the well, Wuhan, China.
which means remedial actions could be taken accordingly
ahead of time. Rabiei, M., Gupta, R, Cheong, Y.P. and Sanchez Soto, G.A. 2010.
We anticipate that the complete water production A Novel Approach in Extracting Predictive Information From
diagnostic system will be made available to the end user as a Water-Oil Ratio For Enhanced Water Production Mechanism
stand-alone tool in future. The training data used in the Diagnosis. APPEA Journal, 2010.
SPE 133929 9

Sanchez, P.Z., Delgado, M.A. and Quinones, V.H. 2007. Water

Control in Heavy-Oil Mature Field, Block 1AB. Paper
SPE108039 presented at SPE Latin American and Caribean
Petroleum Engineering Conference Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Seright, R.S. 1998. Improved Methods for Water Shutoff. Final

Technical Progress Report (U.S. DOE Report
DOE/PC/91008-14), U.S. DOE Contract DE-AC22-
94PC91008, BDM-Oklahoma Subcontract G4S60330

Tomei, L.A. 2008. Encyclopedia of information technology

curriculum integration. USA.

Webb, A.R. 2002. Statistical Pattern Recognition, John Wiley &

Sons, Ltd.