GeoVue Comparative Accuracy Evaluation
Groundwater and geological verification

Accuracy across 61 comparative well studies

A consolidated evaluation of aquifer targeting, well-yield forecasting, individual lithology types, geological formations and interface-depth calibration. Select any well in the summary to open its complete HTML report.

Aquifer target confirmation60/61

98.4% confirmed the principal aquifer or hydrostratigraphic target.

Yield forecast envelope6/12

Half of the numerical comparisons were inside the range; every range exceedance produced more water than forecast.

Interface depth3.65 m

Median report-level RMSE, with median MAE of 2.65 m.

Normalised depth residual2.51%

Median normalised RMSE for reports containing a depth-normalised value.

Overall interpretation

Strong targeting, conservative productivity forecasting

The most consistent performance is the placement of the correct aquifer system and the reproduction of the major geological sequence. Yield estimates are generally more conservative than later field rates, which is often desirable for planning and risk control.

Where the comparisons are strongest

  • Aquifer targeting: 60 of 61 principal targets were confirmed.
  • Geological sequence: major sedimentary, volcanic, weathered, fractured and basement packages generally occur in the correct order and depth domain.
  • Depth calibration: median RMSE is 3.65 m and median normalised RMSE is 2.51%.
  • Completion relevance: screens and open-hole intervals frequently intersect or directly adjoin the strongest predicted aquifer response.

Why an underestimated result can still be successful

A predicted formation can prove thicker, more connected or more productive than forecast while the target decision remains correct. A conservative interval provides a dependable core target and leaves the favourable upside to drilling.

Yield underestimation is especially positive when the completed bore encounters connected fracture flow, dual-porosity behaviour, solution openings or highly connected coarse sediment. These contributions can raise the tested rate above a matrix-based sustainable estimate without changing the fact that the correct aquifer system was selected.

Yield interpretation

Conservative yield estimates preserve upside

Across the numerical comparisons, 6 field rates fell inside the predicted envelope and 6 exceeded its upper bound. No numerical case fell below the stated minimum. This pattern means the range misses were favourable production outcomes rather than dry or underperforming outcomes.

Fracture-flow contribution

Where fractured rock, carbonate or dual-porosity targets are present, connected fractures are the leading explanation for field rates above forecast. Fracture flow is concentrated through a limited number of open pathways and can therefore produce much more water than the surrounding rock matrix alone would suggest.

In coarse gravel systems, the parallel effect is unusually strong hydraulic connection through clean gravel, weathered conglomerate or an efficiently completed screen. Both mechanisms create positive upside after the target has been correctly located.

Average favourable exceedance3.71×

Across the six above-range cases, observed field rates averaged 3.71 times the predicted maximum - approximately 271% above the forecast upper bound.

Comparison pattern: the six above-range cases averaged 3.71 times the forecast maximum. Fractured limestone and dual-porosity gravel produced the strongest uplift, while clean gravel and connected sedimentary completions produced the remaining favourable exceedances.
WellObserved versus predicted rangeObserved / forecast maximum
210351.51 L/s observed; 0.7-7.1 L/s predicted7.25×
BW22:006920 L/s step test; 0.8-3.9 L/s predicted5.13×
191010.66 L/s observed; 0.3-2.6 L/s predicted4.10×
169274.19 L/s observed; 0.3-1.6 L/s predicted2.62×
BW22:008714.0 L/s step test; 0.6-7.1 L/s predicted1.97×
5_3893.06 L/s observed; 0.3-2.6 L/s predicted1.18×
Lithology detail

Performance by individual lithology type

The reports show the strongest correspondence for coarse sediment, sand and consolidated sedimentary formations. Volcanic, weathered and fractured units are commonly located at formation scale, while their exact internal naming depends on whether the drilled material is massive, altered, clay-bound or fracture-controlled. A report can contain both a successful broad match and a local boundary or naming difference.

Coarse gravel / conglomerate

86%

Coarse units are one of the strongest recurring matches. The principal gravel or conglomeratic package is usually placed in the correct depth domain, particularly where it controls the completed aquifer. Local differences most often concern whether the interval is clean, clay-bound, weathered or split into several thinner beds.

42 positive matches49 reports containing the class27 local differences also noted

Sand / sandy sediment

87%

Sand and sandy sediment generally show strong correspondence, especially when they form part of a broad saturated package. Differences are commonly associated with interbedding, gradational contacts and the grouping of sand with gravel, silt or volcanic-derived sediment.

40 positive matches46 reports containing the class23 local differences also noted

Silt / fine sediment

72%

Fine sediment is commonly recognised as a low-permeability or transitional response. Thin silt beds are less consistently resolved than thick packages, but major fine-grained separators and aquitard intervals are usually represented in the correct sequence.

21 positive matches29 reports containing the class7 local differences also noted

Clay / clay-bound units

72%

Clay-rich units are generally recognised through their confining or reduced-permeability behaviour. The main differences occur where a drilled interval is described as clayey gravel or sandy clay while the interpretation assigns the dominant hydraulic behaviour rather than the exact driller-log name.

39 positive matches54 reports containing the class21 local differences also noted

Volcanic rock

51%

Volcanic packages are usually placed in the correct broad stratigraphic position. Exact naming is less uniform because massive, weathered, fractured and volcaniclastic material can produce different responses within the same mapped volcanic sequence.

26 positive matches51 reports containing the class18 local differences also noted

Greywacke / basement hard rock

64%

Basement and greywacke transitions are generally detected as a change into more competent rock. Productive behaviour depends on fracture connectivity, so the formation boundary can be accurate even when the eventual yield is controlled by a limited number of open fractures.

7 positive matches11 reports containing the class4 local differences also noted

Mudstone / sandstone / siltstone

83%

Interbedded sedimentary rock performs strongly at formation scale. The system commonly identifies the same consolidated sedimentary package and its main aquifer-bearing transitions, although individual sandstone, mudstone and siltstone beds may be grouped differently.

20 positive matches24 reports containing the class11 local differences also noted

Fractured / dual-porosity zones

69%

Fractured and dual-porosity responses are a major hydrogeological strength. These intervals frequently align with productive rock, carbonate or coarse-clastic targets and help explain field yields that exceed conservative matrix-based forecasts.

25 positive matches36 reports containing the class14 local differences also noted

Weathered / altered zones

51%

Weathered and altered zones are important transition targets. Their broad position is often identified, while the exact top and base can differ because weathering is gradational and may extend beyond the strongest response interval.

23 positive matches45 reports containing the class18 local differences also noted

Limestone / carbonate

71%

Carbonate targets are usually recognised in the correct deeper formation package. Where cavities, solution openings or fractures are encountered, measured production can substantially exceed a conservative pre-drill yield estimate.

5 positive matches7 reports containing the class3 local differences also noted

Peat / organic sediment

50%

Organic and peat layers are usually thin and shallow. They are less consistently separated as an exact lithology but are often represented within the correct low-density or fine-grained near-surface package.

3 positive matches6 reports containing the class2 local differences also noted
Formation and interface depth

Velocity-model calibration accuracy

Interface placement is generally within a few metres. The median absolute error is 2.65 m and the median RMSE is 3.65 m. Where normalised values are available, the median residual is 2.51% of the relevant depth.

What the depth values indicate

  • Major shallow contacts and groundwater markers frequently agree closely.
  • Formation tops, bases and productive target centres generally remain in the correct drilling interval.
  • Residual depth differences are commonly expressed as local vertical stretch or compression rather than a consistent deep or shallow shift.
  • Multiple calibration anchors within the same well improve interpretation of deeper interfaces.

Thickness underestimation

A predicted formation can be narrower than the drilled unit while still locating the target correctly. This occurs when the strongest response identifies the hydraulic core of a broader formation, or when fractures and connected permeability extend beyond the central response.

For drilling decisions, target-centre alignment, screen intersection and aquifer overlap can be more important than matching every gradational top and base.

Well-by-well results

Summary and individual report links

Search by well number or result. Each complete study opens as a separate HTML report hosted in the ComparativeReports folder.

61 wells
WellAquifer targetYield resultMAE mRMSE mNorm. RMSEReport
BZ19:0146 Confirmed Within forecast1.0 L/s observed; 0.3-3.0 L/s predicted — — — View report
72_10622 Confirmed No field-rate comparison — — — View report
72_12796 Confirmed No field-rate comparison 5.70 7.50 2.51% View report
16105 Confirmed Within forecast5.0 L/s observed; 0.9-8.4 L/s predicted 2.22 3.21 — View report
16927 Confirmed Above forecast4.19 L/s observed; 0.3-1.6 L/s predicted — — — View report
17572 Confirmed Within forecast1.0 L/s observed; 0.6-1.6 L/s predicted 1.25 1.42 2.40% View report
BW22:0069 Confirmed Above forecast20 L/s step test; 0.8-3.9 L/s predicted 4.00 5.80 — View report
BW22:0087 Confirmed Above forecast14.0 L/s step test; 0.6-7.1 L/s predicted — — — View report
L35:0794 Confirmed No field-rate comparison 1.25 1.32 — View report
L35:0844 Confirmed No field-rate comparison — — — View report
L35:0864 Confirmed No field-rate comparison 2.10 2.81 — View report
23076 Confirmed No field-rate comparison 4.45 5.63 — View report
22799 Confirmed No field-rate comparison 3.20 4.70 — View report
BW24:0750 Confirmed No field-rate comparison — — — View report
72_12575 Confirmed No field-rate comparison 0.27 0.41 0.16% View report
72_12576 Confirmed No field-rate comparison 1.55 1.99 5.50% View report
20758 Confirmed No field-rate comparison — — — View report
23230 Confirmed No field-rate comparison 4.25 6.21 — View report
23545 Confirmed No field-rate comparison 1.80 2.40 — View report
4872 Confirmed No field-rate comparison 1.50 1.91 1.00% View report
544 Confirmed No field-rate comparison 3.65 4.41 — View report
70_890 Confirmed No field-rate comparison 3.46 4.77 6.30% View report
30080 Confirmed No field-rate comparison 2.20 2.80 2.40% View report
16212 Confirmed No field-rate comparison 0.20 0.28 — View report
16384 Confirmed No field-rate comparison 3.58 5.54 3.60% View report
17_242 Confirmed No field-rate comparison 3.00 3.80 8.00% View report
5_389 Confirmed Above forecast3.06 L/s observed; 0.3-2.6 L/s predicted — — — View report
16383 Confirmed Within forecast7.0 L/s short test; within combined maximum envelope — — — View report
1910 Confirmed Above forecast10.66 L/s observed; 0.3-2.6 L/s predicted — — — View report
2321 Confirmed No field-rate comparison 0.78 0.90 2.90% View report
3083 Confirmed No field-rate comparison 0.75 0.99 2.70% View report
72_13085 Confirmed No field-rate comparison 1.13 1.27 0.91% View report
72_11723 Confirmed No field-rate comparison 4.00 4.70 4.10% View report
3 · A Confirmed No field-rate comparison 2.65 2.67 1.35% View report
16_834 Confirmed No field-rate comparison 5.10 7.90 6.60% View report
72_12047 Confirmed Close point estimate0.61 L/s observed; 0.70 L/s predicted 2.40 3.65 — View report
1 · A Confirmed No field-rate comparison 4.70 6.40 1.80% View report
2 Confirmed No field-rate comparison 8.11 10.21 1.84% View report
3 · B Confirmed No field-rate comparison 8.30 11.30 2.07% View report
16668 Confirmed No field-rate comparison 4.70 5.90 — View report
61_191 Confirmed Within forecast0.85 L/s observed; 0.6-4.0 L/s predicted — — — View report
72_10876 Confirmed No field-rate comparison — — — View report
15_795 Confirmed No field-rate comparison 1.09 1.39 1.55% View report
2103 Confirmed Above forecast51.51 L/s observed; 0.7-7.1 L/s predicted 2.19 2.55 2.80% View report
BV24:0085 Confirmed No field-rate comparison 2.80 4.00 6.00% View report
M33:0226 Confirmed No field-rate comparison 3.65 4.82 5.70% View report
16634 Not confirmed No field-rate comparison — — — View report
1 · B Confirmed No field-rate comparison 12.50 16.20 2.94% View report
ca-WCR2017-001577 Confirmed No field-rate comparison 5.00 5.30 — View report
ca-WCR2018-001155 Confirmed No field-rate comparison 7.20 9.00 1.50% View report
ca-WCR2018-004359 Confirmed No field-rate comparison 8.00 11.20 1.70% View report
M34:5575 Confirmed No field-rate comparison 0.75 0.99 1.50% View report
63_264 Confirmed No field-rate comparison 7.50 9.70 6.20% View report
72_9672 Confirmed No field-rate comparison — — — View report
61_544 Confirmed No field-rate comparison 1.46 1.84 — View report
61_744 Confirmed No field-rate comparison 1.75 1.90 4.00% View report
72_5607 Confirmed No field-rate comparison 1.89 2.93 — View report
72_10836 Confirmed No field-rate comparison 1.03 1.20 3.10% View report
72_3531 Confirmed No field-rate comparison 0.56 0.91 1.65% View report
BN22-0029 Confirmed Within forecast5.0 L/s observed; 1.7-13.1 L/s predicted; point estimate 4.9 L/s 2.50 3.37 — View report
BN23-0067 Confirmed No field-rate comparison 5.70 5.90 2.40% View report