OTC-29490-MS

Wellbore Schematics to Structured Data Using Artificial Intelligence Tools

Vanessa Ndonhong Kemajou, Anqi Bao, and Olivier Germain, Halliburton

Copyright 2019, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, USA, 6 – 9 May 2019.

This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC 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 Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Offshore Technology Conference 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 OTC copyright.

Abstract
Wellbore schematics are essential to well planning and operations because they detail well design,
completions, and sometimes the production mechanism. There are multiple formats and types of wellbore
schematics; however, they generally consist of a well diagram accompanied by tables of annotations listing
components and equipment details such as depths and diameters. Paper-based wellbore schematic reports
are often distributed as the primary account of technical information concerning old wells after being
acquired by oil and gas operators. Any intervention or further operation on those wells would require a
thorough and manual interpretation of those reports, which can be lengthy and prone to errors. Therefore,
to automatically convert the diagram and annotations into a readable database, a practical technique or tool
has to be developed.
Artificial intelligence (AI)-powered image analysis addresses similar problems for other engineering
disciplines and industries, and with the latest advances for software and computer hardware capabilities, it is
possible to design specialized solutions for the oil and gas industry. Therefore, a methodology was defined
and implemented to import the available machine learning technology for automating the interpretation and
analysis of wellbore schematics. With this novel tool, scanning the paper-based wellbore schematic results
in digital and easily shareable structured data that can be used to regenerate a digital wellbore schematic.
This method analyzes the diagram and the annotations on the wellbore schematic file and then combines
the analysis results by matching the diagram with the surrounding annotations and engineering constraints.
The methodology was tested on a set of wellbore schematic files, and digital schematics were regenerated.
Fundamental components and equipment were detected that matched the original schematics in terms
of depths and diameters. The designed tool saves considerable time and effort while providing accuracy
and repeatability. These results highlight some of the benefits of applying multidisciplinary ideas for data
management to the industry.
The object detection technique in image analytics is new to the oil and gas industry for identifying
components in well schematics. Further, this project is comprehensive because it identifies the diagram and
related annotations. Challenges and breakthroughs experienced in this research will be addressed.
2 OTC-29490-MS

Introduction
Wellbore schematics, a fundamental tool for the oil and gas industry, are documents detailing well
construction during the lifetime of a well and recording the status of the well, including drilling, completions,
and production information. The average lifetime of a natural gas and oil well is currently 20 to 30
years (Encana Natural Gas 2011), and during that time, multiple modifications might occur in terms of
ownership or technology. Well schematic files are passed to new owners to share information concerning
work performed in a well and its status. Wellbore schematics are essential to well planning and operations
with respect to performing workovers or helping improve technology used on a well, such as a sidetrack
on an old vertical well.
These tasks require a detailed analysis of the current well design, completions, and production
mechanisms. There is a multitude of formats and types for wellbore schematics, but generally they consist
of a well diagram accompanied by tables of annotations listing some components and various equipment
details such as depths and diameters. Previously, well schematic files were drawn by hand but are currently
generated using well construction software and can be in printed or digital format. Therefore, oil and gas
operators possess numerous wellbore schematics for the many wells they have, and these documents are
full of valuable data that could determine how an intervention or further operation on those wells can be
performed.
A thorough interpretation of those reports, currently performed manually, is necessary before high-stake
operational decisions can be made, including workovers such as rod replacement in an artificial lift-driven
well or more complex operations such as recompletions or side-tracking. They all imply understanding the
contents of the well and their respective location to plan for proper removal or access. Before drilling a new
well, operators should understand where and how neighboring wells have been designed and the lessons
learned from those earlier endeavors. While such decisions or comparisons can be made manually when only
one well is being reviewed, in practice, operators typically inherit fields with dozens or hundreds of wells
that should be analyzed and prioritized. Such analysis should be performed by software able to calculate
potential risks and benefits. For this to occur, schematics have to be translated into machine readable data
or stored in a commercial database designed for that purpose (EDM™ software development kit 2018). If
performed manually, this translation or interpretation task would be lengthy. A tool capable of precise and
automatic conversion of wellbore schematics into an equivalent digital and simplified database is essential.
Ideally, the computer will process those schematics and only highlight the items it could not understand or
where ambiguity is still present. The engineer would only have to perform final QA/QC.
Computer vision in machine learning is addressing similar problems in other engineering disciplines and
industries such as architecture, mechanical engineering, and computer engineering (Danvk 2015; Bulert et
al. 2017). Considering the latest advances in software and computer hardware capabilities, it is possible
to design computer vision solutions for the oil and gas industry. Therefore, a methodology was defined
and implemented to import the machine learning technologies of object detection and optical character
recognition (OCR) for the specific application of automating the interpretation and analysis of wellbore
schematics.
The object detection method with the specific application of deep-learning convolutional neural network
(CNN) is used extensively for the computer vision area such as traffic monitoring, self-driving cars, drones,
face recognition, etc. Recently, there have been a significant amount of research groups working in this
computer vision area, with multiple social media object detection applications now available. The general
framework for all object detection techniques or even deep learning is comprised of three parts—network
architecture, loss function, and optimization algorithm—and all deep-learning methods have their own
unique approach of defining each of the three parts to determine their computational speed and accuracy.
The different object detection models can be classified into two categories: one-stage and two-stage
detectors. The primary difference between them is how they generate anchor boxes. The two-stage detector
OTC-29490-MS 3

has an external proposal generator that generates anchor boxes that might contain objects from feature
maps using, for example, sliding window or region proposal network (RPN) techniques. The two-stage
detector relies on the external proposal generator. Recent work on the one-stage generator demonstrates
the possibility of just using the neural network to generate a collection of box proposals overlaid on top of
feature maps at different sizes, aspect ratios, and locations (Huang et al. 2017). The neural network is then
trained to make two predictions on each anchor box—the exact location of the anchor box that matches
the ground truth box and the classification for each anchor box (Huang et al. 2017). Examples of detectors
developed so far include:

• One-stage detector: single-shot detector (SSD) (Liu et al. 2016) applies multiple small
convolutional layers on top of feature extractors and you only look once (YOLO) (Redmon et al.
2016), which uses a fully connected layer instead of a CNN layer.
• Two-stage detector: region-based CNN (R-CNN) (Girshick et al. 2014) was among the first modern
paradigms to use CNN for object detection and then upgraded to fast R-CNN (Girshick 2015) and
faster R-CNN (Ren et al. 2016).
Fig. 1 shows a schematic description of the two types of detectors. Although the one-stage detector saves
computational time, it suffers accuracy loss, particularly for small objects, because of "class imbalance."
The one-stage detector evaluates thousands of candidates on every image, but only a few actually contain
objects, which causes the imbalance problems—the model spends most of its time identifying background
objects, impeding its accuracy and efficiency. Recent research conducted by Lin et al. (2017) managed to
improve the one-stage detector by introducing a simple coefficient in front of the classification loss.

Figure 1—Schematic plot for (a) one-stage detector and (b) two-stage detector.

Just as the object detection method is used in daily life (Huang 1996), deep learning and machine learning
applications are not unfamiliar to the oil and gas industry, for example, the applications on seismic reservoir
characterization (Dhara et al. 2018; Qian et al. 2018), seismic signal recovery (Xie et al. 2018), dynamic
system identification and model reduction (Bao and Gildin 2018; Bao et al. 2017; Zalavadia and Gildin
2018), facies and formation identification (Odi and Nguyen 2018), optimal well placement (Nwachukwu
et al. 2018), production prediction (Loh et al. 2018), and enhanced oil recovery (Chen et al. 2018), etc.
4 OTC-29490-MS

However, this paper, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, is the first that applies the modern deep
learning-based computer vision technique to automatize digitalization of schematics. This research offers
the opportunity to minimize human effort on digitalizing paper-based wellbore schematics and provides an
approach to exploring the connection between schematics more efficiently. Although the object detection
and deep learning techniques have many variations, they share common strategies:

• Architecture: predefined layers of CNN to generate feature maps. For this method, which applies
to drilling schematics, it was determined that the ResNet50 (He et al. 2016) works well, which
is a sophisticated network with approximately 50 convolutional layers originally developed by
Microsoft.
• Loss function: commonly contains classification loss and localization loss.

• Optimization algorithms: includes stochastic gradient descent (SGD), Adam, and minibatch
gradient descent (Ruder 2016), which seek to minimize the loss function using backpropagation.
To digitalize the schematics, the type and spatial location of each wellbore component (i.e., tubing,
casing, packers, perforations, etc.) should be detected; the authors developed a customized hierarchical
object detector that uniquely identifies these components. Training data sets are schematic images and their
labeling files, which contain the class name and spatial location of the manually recognized ground-truth
boxes for each object. The detector, which is essentially a neural network, is then trained to predict the
class of each anchor box and the offset by which the anchors should be shifted to match the ground-truth
boxes. The components and their annotations that denote their depth and size are connected with the so-
called "tether line," which can be detected and used to enrich details in the detection. Finally, all results are
merged with the OCR to recover a more detailed digital representation. Applying this method to an offshore
wellbore schematic will be demonstrated.
OCR methodology has created great interest in multiple fields, including document preservation for
historians (Reul et al. 2018) and analysis companies such as Dropbox and Google. It provides a tool to
automatically detect and analyze text on any digital document. There are various OCR implementations with
an open-source license for various levels of applications, and there are multiple methods to OCR documents
with little available training data.
OCROPY is the Python language of an open-source collection of programs for document analysis and
recognition that implements the contemporary long short-term memory (LSTM) over recurrent neural
networks. It is a pioneer in the use of a line-based approach using bidirectional LSTM networks. This
method has two fundamental benefits:

• Superior recognition capability compared to glyph-based approaches

• Users can train new models by just providing image/text pairs on line level

The LSTM performance improves with training to the point that the open-source OCR engine can
consistently produce better results than commercial versions. A common error in the results from OCROPY
is the deletion of white spaces, resulting in merged words, which proved to be an issue when trying to OCR
data tables. It prompted the inclusion of a preprocessing stage where tables would be detected, and then
every column would be isolated in individual new files and fed to the OCR processor.
It is worth noting that while those tools are well established in the open-source world and have received
wide commercial applications, they were, for the most part, designed for a business environment much
different from the oil and gas industry. Oil and gas schematics have an extremely low density of information
per page compared to a typical photo. Additionally, most schematics are in black and white. Generally, the
information is coded in similar elements—vertical lines, triangles, and squares—that are only a few pixels
in size. Therefore, distinguishing a vertical line representing a casing vs. tubing vs. a separator between
OTC-29490-MS 5

columns vs. a crease in the paper requires different cross-references and analysis than identifying, for
example, a cat from a dog.

Methodology
Fig. 2 shows the overall workflow for the implementation of the methodology. At the beginning is a stack
of scanned or digital wellbore schematic files fed into a preprocessor that runs an initial analysis on each
document to classify the file and dissect it into the annotations and schematic for a thorough analysis later.
The annotations are analyzed with the OCR-based tool while the schematic is analyzed with the object
detection tool. The results are post-processed to return two initial raw databases of detected components
and characters that are merged and refined, considering some engineering constraints, and the final results
—structured data—are made available for every well schematic file. That data file, because of its structured
nature, can be used for further analysis on the elements of the corresponding well schematic file.

Figure 2—Methodology process workflow.

Preprocessor
Fig. 3 shows the components of the preprocessor as it prepares the files for object detection and OCR steps;
it first labels the image file either manually or automatically. As previously mentioned, schematics come in
different shapes and forms; even ones with the same content can be laid out in different modes, either for
practical or aesthetic purposes. While it is easy for a human to understand how a column of text with a header
differs from a box of comments and to infer from their placements their value and relationships without
any training, it is arduous for an automated process to perform it correctly. The solution adopted is that
for each new set of relatively homogeneous files with diverse contents (diagrams, tables, lists, textboxes,
etc.), a random set of images is labeled manually using the open-source tool LabelImg, where bounding
boxes are drawn and labeled around every diagram, text box, and annotation table column. After that initial
characterization, LabelImg automatically generates XML files while the labeled files are saved to store
bounding box coordinates and corresponding labels.

Figure 3—Preprocessor.
6 OTC-29490-MS

The preliminary manual labeling aforementioned generates training and testing data for the AI system
to automatically categorize and label well schematic files. The automatic labeling, in addition to the
"knowledge" gained from the manually labeled schematic files, automatically detects line and intersection
coordinates, which guides the automatic construction of bounding boxes on the images as well as the
preliminary detection of the well diagram on the image. The XML generator then generates XML files to
store the coordinates of the bounding boxes and the labels for annotations or diagrams. A new picture file
and associated XML file is generated for every annotation column and/or row, and following some threshold
text density requirement per file, the column/row may be repeated on the generated annotation picture. The
coordinates of the annotation column/row on the original schematic are recorded. Fig. 4 shows a sample
well schematic file as well as the resulting cropped well diagram and some of the annotation picture files
generated after the preprocessing stage.
OTC-29490-MS 7

Figure 4—(a) Wellbore schematic and preprocessing results; (b)

generated cropped well diagram; (c, d) generated annotation files.

Deep Learning Approach for Object Detection

As previously discussed, the loss function has two parts: classification loss represented by a cross-entropy
function derived from the maximum likelihood and localization loss that measures the difference between
anchor box and ground-truth box coordinates.
The loss function for each anchor box is a combination of these two parts (Eqs. 1 and 2) (Dai et al. 2016):
(1)

(2)
where Lcls (p, y) is the cross-entropy loss function, y equals 1 if a match has been determined in the ground-
truth boxes for a particular anchor box (otherwise y equals 0), p is the probability of the class when y equals
1, t* represents the ground-truth box, and t represents the anchor box.
To alleviate the class imbalance problem of the one-stage detector, Lin et al. (2017) presented an idea of
adding a simple coefficient term in front of the classification loss α(1-pt)γ, where α and γ are other hyper-
parameters to tune. The neural network is trained to minimize the loss function by adjusting weights on
each of the layers.
Fig. 5 delineates the overall structure of the object detector. Firstly, the original image and its labeling
file are examined using a preprocessing tool that checks if the labeled ground-truth boxes are considered
8 OTC-29490-MS

during the training process. This step helps ensure the training dataset is of good quality before training
starts, saving significant time and resources. If the program does not identify a considerable amount of
ground-truth boxes, image size and box size should be adjusted for a validated input dataset. This is mostly
an artifact of how images are processed by the recognition of algorithms, which prefer relatively square
pictures vs. how schematics are drawn—elongated vertical lines.

Figure 5—General workflow for the object detection process.

After the program accepts the training dataset, neural network training resumes. The neural network
architecture is the RetinaNet model that adopts Feature Pyramid Network + ResNet as the backbone, which
is a sophisticated neural network architecture. It is composed of convolutional layers, fully connected layers,
max pooling layers, ReLU layers, and batch norm layers arranged so that important features in the image
can be extracted to a feature map with tuning on the weights of each layer. On top of each feature map, a
small head consisting of class and box subnets is implemented. Those two subnets of fully connected layers
are designed to output the box coordinates (using regression) and probability of the class (using the softmax
function) separately. Each training iteration involves optimization procedures to update the weights on each
layer as a result of minimizing the loss function. Fig. 6 shows the training results for identifying large
components. Training loss using the RetinaNet model can drop significantly within 60 epochs. Additionally,
accuracy is stabilized after 30 epochs, indicating that the model has converged. As a designed hierarchical
model, the smaller object continues to be detected from the cropped image of the large components.
OTC-29490-MS 9

Figure 6—Intermediate results in the training process.

Post-process for the model is necessary because it is likely that multiple anchor boxes will be proposed
around each object and have significant overlap for the one-stage detector; therefore, redundant boxes should
be managed. Fig. 7 illustrates a non-maximum suppression analysis (NMS) to sort boxes based on different
criteria. For example, for perforation, wherever significant overlap is detected among two or more boxes,
only the box associated with the largest confidence score is kept. Furthermore, each component in the
schematics is connected with their depth information by a tether line; detecting this tether line is useful,
particularly for components in tubing because they are so close to each other and matching them is not
easy. Using a line-tracking technique developed by the authors to address this problem at the pixel level,
following the lines and obtaining curtail information of the size or depth of the component associated with
the object detected is possible. Finally, because the small and large components and the lines are in their
own scale or in a cropped image, putting them together requires mapping them back to the global map.
Results will be discussed later in this paper.

Figure 7—Post-processing on excessive casing and perforation boxes before NMS (a) and after NMS (b).
10 OTC-29490-MS

This model is built particularly for wellbore schematics. It is a hierarchical model that allows the user
to identify both large and small components. The results are merged with the OCR (character and number
detection) to generate final results in the form of a structured data file that could be taken as an input for any
schematic-generating software to regenerate/recover schematics using any preferred style. Specifications
used for training the model include:

• Feature extractor/backbone: RetinaNet (ResNet 50 plus feature pyramid net)

• Optimization algorithm: Adam

• Programing language: Python plus TensorFlow backend Keras deep-learning library

• NVIDIA Tesla K80 GPU along with the cuDNN library for heavy computing is necessary

OCR Methodology
Fig. 8 shows a workflow for the OCR process, and steps inherent to the open-source OCROPY are indicated
within the OCROPY box. Annotation files generated from the preprocessing stage are fed into the OCROPY
system that binarizes each file to generate a new picture file similar to a black and white copy of the original
file. Every pixel has a value of either 0, corresponding to black pixels, or 255, corresponding to white pixels.
The layout of the binarized file is then analyzed to ensure that it is not empty. The text segmentation follows
the layout analysis, and will return multiple small picture files corresponding to individual lines of text that
will be input in a text line recognizer where a trained machine learning model returns the recognized lines
of text and stores them in an HTML file. The HTML file is parsed to extract all the recognized characters
and their location in the original file. The generated data is formatted for its desired use. The HTML parsing
is designed to result in files using the comma-separated value (CSV) format for easy access later.

Figure 8—OCR process workflow.

OTC-29490-MS 11

Engineering Constraints
After the computer vision tools return the raw databases of characters and detected components, there
is some uncertainty to overcome because machine learning is inherently statistical/probabilistic. The
engineering constraints help ensure those results adhere to petroleum engineering and well construction
standards. For example, a well design assessment will categorize holes, casing types, and diameters to
distinguish between a production casing and a production liner. Additionally, this stage helps determine the
exact depths and distribution of wellbore assembly components such as the tubing around packers or liners
and perforations in the vicinity of packers.

Merging Tool
The merging tool is the avenue for combining object detection and OCR results while applying the necessary
engineering constraints. Here, depths and component types are matched and saved in a single database.

Structured Data
An XML file is generated as the result of the overall analysis. Its structure can be made compatible with some
well construction software to regenerate a well diagram that can be compared to the original well diagram.

Results and Discussion

The designed methodology was implemented and tested on a set of wellbore schematics for onshore and
offshore wells. Some results from every workflow step will be presented and discussed.

Object Detection
The following subsections represent example wellbore schematics designed for the offshore environment.
Besides the four regular casings—conductor, surface, intermediate, and production (Rahman and
Chilingarian 1995)—there is a short string of a large diameter structural casing set on top of conduction
casing to isolate unconsolidated shallow sediments and help support the wellhead installed on the conductor
casing (API RP 64). Fig. 9 shows how the authors’ detector can recognize large components (casing, tubing,
etc.) with a relatively high probability score and with no significant overlapping (>50%) of the boxes when
using the NMS technique. The components follow the symmetry rule imposed during the post-treatment
process. Smaller components, such as a packer and wireline nipple (WINI), are also correctly detected;
however, the WINI detection yields low confidence scores, which might be caused by its lack of unique
features. For this type of two-dimensional (2D) schematic, there are multiple types of connectors that share
similar features as WINI, making it difficult for the program to distinguish between them. This problem
can be tackled by setting constraints during post-processing because the type of WINI appears constantly
at the bottom of a tubing section. Such constraints are prevalent in this model, as described further in the
Engineering Constraints subsection.
12 OTC-29490-MS

Figure 9—Results of the hierarchal schematic components detector.

OCR Results
Training was an important step during setup because its quality directly correlated with the overall results
quality. Fig. 10 shows the type of faulty results obtained with insufficient or inadequate model training. It
is evident that multiple characters are misread; for instance, the number "0" is often mistaken for the letter
"O," and the letter "f" is often recognized as an "I" or "h."

Figure 10—OCR preliminary results with a model based on weak training.

OTC-29490-MS 13

The error rate is drastically reduced when using a model resulting from a broader training set. The
OCROPY is embedded with a user-friendly training routine that enables the user to enter ground-truth data
in a cell adjacent to the corresponding line of text (Fig. 11). Fig. 12 shows improved results for the OCR
when using a well-trained model.

Figure 11—Setting ground-truth data for OCR model training.

Figure 12—(Left) column cropped from well schematic; (right) sample OCR results with a well-trained model.

Engineering Constraints
Fig. 13 shows that applying engineering constraints by considering the presence of a permanent packer
enabled this system to refine the initial detection of a single-tubing unit inside the red rectangle on the left
and instead correctly detected two adjacent tubing units in the red and green rectangles on the right.
14 OTC-29490-MS

Figure 13—Applying engineering constraints to tubing: (left) initial detection and (right) corrected detection.

In a similar fashion, Fig. 14 shows that the location of packers and the top of the production liner in
the small green ellipse improved the interpretation of the perforation distribution during the interval inside
the largest red rectangular shape. In the large blue ellipse, the detection of a liner tieback packer and the
top of a liner indicated the presence of a liner hanger, which could not be automatically detected by object
detection because of its small size.

Figure 14—Applying engineering constraints to the bottomhole: (left) initial detection and (right) corrected detection.
OTC-29490-MS 15

Merged Results: Structured Data

Fig. 15 (a) is a snapshot of an XML file the authors built based on previous object and character detections,
and the format was specially written to fit in the house schematic generator software. Rebuilding the
schematics involves significant and carefully thought-out coordination between steps and assumptions. It
begins with casing and hole depth data obtained from the combined interpretations from object detection,
OCR, and engineering judgments. Next, gradually include packers and perforations data as well as details
about small assemblies in the tubing while ensuring that various data agree with each other. When compiling
information in the XML file, it is necessary to know the names the software used for specific components
and their importance in the schematic rebuild. Slight differences between original and generated schematics
[Figs. 14 (b) and (c)] exist because of the smart scaling algorithm the software is using and different versions
of the software. This indicates the possibility of generating different styles of schematics based on the same
data file created. Therefore, regenerated schematics should have annotations exhibiting the depth and size
of each component to compare to the schematics created from all kinds of software.

Figure 15—Offshore schematic regenerated with (a) structured

data file, (b) original schematics, and (c) regenerated schematics.
16 OTC-29490-MS

Conclusion
A machine learning tool was developed for the automatic analysis of wellbore schematic files using the
recent machine learning technology for computer vision, combining object detection and OCR. The tool
achieved the following:

• The input of a scan of the paper-based wellbore schematic would result in a digital and easily
shareable structured data that can be used to regenerate a digital wellbore schematic.
• The method used would concurrently analyze the diagram and the annotations on the wellbore
schematic file, and then combine the analysis results by matching the diagram with the surrounding
annotations and engineering constraints.
• The methodology was tested on a set of wellbore schematic files, causing promising results.

• Digital schematics were regenerated from analysis results. Fundamental components and
equipment were detected, and they have an excellent match in depths and diameters with the
original schematics.
• The designed tool saves considerable time and effort while providing accuracy and repeatability.

• Results highlight some of the benefits of applying multidisciplinary ideas for data management to
the oil and gas industry.

Acknowledgement
The authors thank technical support from the OpenEarth® Community and Halliburton for allowing them
and guiding them on how to use their commercial software for the creation of wellbore schematics (EDT™
Software 2018), for providing necessary data to generate diverse examples necessary to test the solution,
and for patenting and publishing this process.

Nomenclature
2D = two-dimensional
Lcls = cross entropy loss function
p = probability
t = anchor box
t* = ground-truth box
AI = artificial intelligence
API RP = American Petroleum Institute recommended practice
CNN = convolutional neural network
CSV = comma-separated values
cuDNN = NVIDIA CUDA deep neural network library
EDM = engineer's data model
EDT = engineer's desktop
GPU = graphics processing unit
HTML = hypertext markup language
LSTM = long short-term memory
NMS = non-maximum suppression
OCR = optical character recognition
OD = object detection
QA = quality assurance
QC = quality control
R-CNN = region-based convolutional neural network
OTC-29490-MS 17

RNN = recurrent neural network

RPN = region proposal network
SGD = stochastic gradient descent
SSD = single-shot detector
WINI = wireline nipple
XML = extensible markup language
YOLO = you only look once

References
American Petroleum Institute Production Department. 2001. API RP 64: Recommended Practice for Diverter Systems
Equipment and Operations. Second Edition.
Bao, A. and Gildin, E. 2017. Data-Driven Model Reduction Based on Sparsity-Promoting Methods for Multiphase Flow in
Porous Media. Presented at the SPE Latin America and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Buenos Aires,
Argentina, 17–19 May. SPE-185514-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/185514-MS.
Bao, A., Gildin, E., and Zalavadia, H. 2018. Development of Proxy Models for Reservoir Simulation by Sparsity
Promoting Methods and Machine Learning Techniques. Presented at the ECMOR XVI-16th European Conference on
the Mathematics of Oil Recovery. https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201802180.
Bulert, K., Miyagawa, S., and Buechler, M. 2017. Optical Character Recognition with a Neural Network Model for Coptic.
Presented at the DH2017, Montreal, Canada, 08 December 8.
Chen, B., Harp, D. R., Lin, Y. et al. 2018. Geologic CO2 sequestration monitoring design: A machine
learning and uncertainty quantification-based approach. Applied Energy, 225: 332–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.apenergy.2018.05.044.
Dai, J., Li, Y., He, K. et al. 2016. R-FCN: Object Detection via Region-based Fully Convolutional Networks. Advances
in Neural Information Processing Systems, 379–387.
Danvk.org. 2015. Extracting text from an image using Ocropus. https://www.danvk.org/2015/01/09/extracting-text-from-
an-image-using-ocropus.html (accessed on 06 July 2018).
Dhara A, Trainor-Guitton W, and Tura A. 2018. Machine-learning-based methods for estimation and stochastic simulation.
SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2018, 2261–2265.
Encana Natural Gas. 2011. Life of the Well 2011. https://www.encana.com/pdf/communities/usa/LifeOfTheWell2011.pdf
(accessed 20 June 2018).
Engineer's Data Model (EDM). 2018. http://www.landmark.solutions/Engineers-Data-Model (accessed 06 July 2018).
Engineer's Desktop™ (EDT™) Software. 2018. https://www.landmark.solutions/Portals/0/LMSDocs/Datasheets/EDT-
datasheet.pdf (accessed 12 June 2018).
Girshick, R. 2015. Fast R-CNN. Presented at the 2015 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, Santiago,
Chile, 7–13 December. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCV.2015.169.
Girshick, R., Donahue, J., Darrell, T. et al. 2014. Rich feature hierarchies for accurate object detection and semantic
segmentation. Presented at the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. https://doi.org/10.1109/
CVPR.2014.81.
He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S. et al. 2016. Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition. Presented at the IEEE Conference
on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Las Vegas, Nevada, 27–30 June. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2016.90.
Huang, T. 1996. Computer vision: Evolution and promise.
Huang, J., Rathod, V., Sun, C. et al. 2017. Speed/accuracy trade-offs for modern convolutional object detectors. Presented
at the 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2017.351.
Lin, T. Y., Goyal, P., Girshick, R. et al. 2017. Focal loss for dense object detection. Presented at the 2017 IEEE International
Conference on Computer Vision. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCV.2017.324.
Loh, K., Omrani, P. S., and van der Linden, R. 2018. Deep Learning and Data Assimilation for Real-Time Production
Prediction in Natural Gas Wells. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.05141.
Nwachukwu, A., Jeong, H., Pyrcz, M. et al. 2018. Fast evaluation of well placements in heterogeneous reservoir models
using machine learning. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 163: 463–475. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.petrol.2018.01.019.
Odi, U. and Nguyen, T. 2018. Geological Facies Prediction Using Computed Tomography in a Machine Learning and
Deep Learning Environment. In Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, 23–25 July 2018,
336–346. URTEC-2901881-MS. https://doi.org/10.15530/URTEC-2018-2901881.
Qian, F., Yin, M., Liu, X. Y. et al. 2018. Unsupervised seismic facies analysis via deep convolutional autoencoders.
Geophysics, 83(3): A39–A43. https://doi.org/10.1190/geo2017-0524.1.
18 OTC-29490-MS

Rahman, S. S. and Chilingarian, G. V. 1995. Casing Design - Theory and Practice, Volume 42, 1st edition, Elsevier.
Redmon, J., Divvala, S., Girshick, R. et al. 2016. You Only Look Once: Unified, Real-Time Object Detection. Presented
at the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. https//:doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2016.91.
Ren, S., He, K., Girshick, R. et al. 2015. Faster R-CNN: Towards Real-Time Object Detection with Region
Proposal Networks. Advances in Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 39(6): 91–99. https://doi.org/10.1109/
TPAMI.2016.2577031.
Reul, C., Wick, C., Springmann, U. et al. 2018. State of the Art Optical Character Recognition of 19th Century Fraktur
Scripts using Open Source Engines. In arXiv preprint arXiv: 1810.03436.
Ruder, S. 2016. An overview of gradient descent optimization algorithms. In arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.04747.
Xie, P., Boelle, J. L., and Puntous, H. 2018. Generative adversarial network based fast noise removal on land seismic data.
SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2018: 2171–2175.
Zalavadia, H. and Gildin, E. 2018. Parametric Model Order Reduction For Adaptive Basis Selection Using Machine
Learning Techniques During Well Location Opt. Presented at the ECMOR XVI – 16th European Conference on the
Mathematics of Oil Recovery. https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201802235.