Borehole Risk Scoring via Segmented Sub-Risk Aggregation
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Current methods for evaluating borehole design risks are cumbersome and lead to incorrect assessments, lacking standardized risk management tools that can be customized for the hydrocarbon production industry, and fail to provide APIs for integrating with the borehole design process, resulting in inconsistent risk evaluation across organizations.
Innovation Solution
A method and system for determining risk scores for borehole designs by receiving location and associated data, determining design concepts, assigning risks, generating sub-risk scores, and calculating a final risk score, which can be communicated to other systems, allowing for customizable risk calculations and management using a risk matrix and risk model.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Adaptability or versatility
If conventional independent risk evaluation methods are used by users, then flexibility in risk assessment is maintained, but consistency and accuracy of risk scores deteriorate
Solution Approach 1:
The risk evaluation process is segmented into distinct components: multiple borehole design concepts are identified, each concept is assigned specific risks, and sub-risk scores are generated for each concept. These segmented evaluations are then aggregated to produce an overall risk score, allowing both detailed analysis and consistent aggregation.
Solution Approach 2:
The system transforms qualitative risk assessments into quantitative parameters by generating numerical sub-risk scores for each borehole design concept and aggregating them into an overall risk score. This parameter transformation enables consistent measurement and comparison across different evaluations.
2Measurement precision
If standardized risk management tools are implemented, then consistency and accuracy of risk evaluation improve, but system complexity and integration requirements increase
Solution Approach 1:
The risk evaluation system is designed as a universal tool that can be applied to multiple borehole design concepts simultaneously. The same methodology and scoring framework are used across different concepts, ensuring consistency while handling diverse evaluation scenarios through a single multi-functional system.
Solution Approach 2:
The system introduces an intermediary computational framework that standardizes the transformation of qualitative risk factors into quantitative scores. This intermediary layer handles the complexity of aggregation and normalization, shielding users from the underlying computational complexity while maintaining accuracy.
3Ease of manufacture
If manual risk assessment processes are used, then ease of implementation is maintained, but time consumption and inefficiency increase
Solution Approach 1:
The system enables self-service risk evaluation by automatically identifying borehole design concepts, assigning risks, generating sub-risk scores, and computing overall risk scores without requiring manual intervention for each calculation step. Users simply provide input data, and the system autonomously performs the complete evaluation process.
Solution Approach 2:
The manual mechanical process of risk assessment is replaced with an automated computational system that uses algorithms to identify concepts, assign risks, and calculate scores. This substitution eliminates manual labor while maintaining ease of use through standardized input requirements.
Data Source
AI summary
The disclosure presents processes for evaluating a borehole design against one or more identified risks. The processes can determine borehole design concepts for the borehole design. Each borehole design concept can have multiple risks assigned, which can be selected from a library of risks, a risk matrix or template, a risk model, or user entered risks. The risks can be scored using one or more statistics-based algorithms, such as a sum, an average, a mean, or other algorithms. The risks can be grouped by a risk level, forming a sub-risk score for each risk level for each borehole design concept. A final risk score can be generated using the sub-risk scores for the borehole design. More than one borehole design can be evaluated using a risk tolerance parameter and the borehole design that satisfies the risk tolerance parameter can be selected as the recommended borehole design.