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.
98.4% confirmed the principal aquifer or hydrostratigraphic target.
Half of the numerical comparisons were inside the range; every range exceedance produced more water than forecast.
Median report-level RMSE, with median MAE of 2.65 m.
Median normalised RMSE for reports containing a depth-normalised value.
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.
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.
Across the six above-range cases, observed field rates averaged 3.71 times the predicted maximum - approximately 271% above the forecast upper bound.
| Well | Observed versus predicted range | Observed / forecast maximum |
|---|---|---|
| 2103 | 51.51 L/s observed; 0.7-7.1 L/s predicted | 7.25× |
| BW22:0069 | 20 L/s step test; 0.8-3.9 L/s predicted | 5.13× |
| 1910 | 10.66 L/s observed; 0.3-2.6 L/s predicted | 4.10× |
| 16927 | 4.19 L/s observed; 0.3-1.6 L/s predicted | 2.62× |
| BW22:0087 | 14.0 L/s step test; 0.6-7.1 L/s predicted | 1.97× |
| 5_389 | 3.06 L/s observed; 0.3-2.6 L/s predicted | 1.18× |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
| Well | Aquifer target | Yield result | MAE m | RMSE m | Norm. RMSE | Report |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |

