Вестник нефтегазовой отрасли КазахстанаВестник нефтегазовой отрасли Казахстана2707-42262957-806XKMG Engineering10902610.54859/kjogi109026Research ArticleAnalysis and evaluation of the influence of geological, physical, and technological reservoir characteristics on the performance indicators of geological and technical measuresZhanturinZhomart K.<p>Cand. Sc. (Engineering), Associate Professor</p>aing-zhomart@mail.ruhttps://orcid.org/0009-0007-4944-1850AbishevMurat N.<p>Cand. Sc. (Engineering), Associate Professor</p>m_abishev_nik@mail.ruhttps://orcid.org/0009-0001-5793-3800ArystanaliyevYessengeldi U.<p>Cand. Sc. (Engineering), Professor</p>esen-65@mail.ruhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-7219-2038ZaidemovaZhanylsyn K.<p>Cand. Sc. (Engineering)</p>b.n.m.99@list.ruhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-6628-024XMedetovShokhan M.<p>Cand. Sc. (Engineering)</p>medetov.76@mail.ruhttps://orcid.org/0009-0002-0137-228XAtyrau Oil and Gas University named after S. Utebaev300920268342492907202609092026Copyright © 2026, Zhanturin Z.K., Abishev M.N., Arystanaliyev Y.U., Zaidemova Z.K., Medetov S.M.2026<p><strong>Background: </strong>The outcome of a geological and technical measure is governed by the combined influence of reservoir properties and operating conditions before treatment. Historical field data can support candidate-well selection, but the transfer of established relationships to another field remains uncertain when the sample structure, out-of-sample validation, and applicability limits are not stated explicitly.</p> <p><strong>Aim: </strong>To analyse and evaluate the influence of geological, physical, and technological reservoir characteristics on five geological and technical measure performance indicators and to determine whether the resulting models can support a transparent comparative choice among treatment options.</p> <p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The dataset comprised 107 historical intervention cases: 38 near-wellbore-zone treatments with perforation, 32 acid treatments with perforation, and 37 production-optimization cases. Sixteen input indicators were transformed into nine physically interpretable composite variables. Separate multiple linear regressions were fitted for each intervention type and each of five outcomes. Internal out-of-sample performance was assessed using shuffled five-fold cross-validation with a fixed random seed of 42. Transferability was examined for five West Prorva reservoir units with complete input data by calculating three alternative scenarios per unit and applying fuzzy max-min ranking.</p> <p><strong>Results: </strong>For near-wellbore-zone treatment with perforation, cross-validated R² was 0.530 for effect duration and 0.522 for post-treatment oil rate. For acid treatment with perforation, the highest value was 0.667 for post-treatment oil rate. Production-optimization models were unstable except for a weak positive result for post-treatment oil rate (R² = 0.235). In the West Prorva comparison, production optimization ranked first for units IX-2 and VIII-2, near-wellbore-zone treatment with perforation for T-III and VIII-3, and acid treatment with perforation for T-II. Decision-membership function values were low to moderate (0.15–0.48).</p> <p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The approach is suitable for preliminary screening and comparative decision support, but not for unrestricted prediction outside the calibration domain. Local recalibration and validation against observed post-intervention results are required before operational use.</p>geological and technical measuresreservoir characteristicsregression modellingprincipal component analysisfuzzy setscross-validationгеологиялық-техникалық шараларкен орнының сипаттамаларырегрессиялық модельдеунегізгі компоненттер әдісіанық емес жиындарайқаспалы тексеругеолого-технические мероприятияхарактеристики месторождениярегрессионное моделированиеметод главных компонентнечеткие множестваперекрестная проверка1.Жантурин Ж.К., Арстаналиев Е.У., Зайдемова Ж.К., и др. Обзор методов оценки эффективности геолого-технических мероприятий в нефтегазодобыче // Вестник нефтегазовой отрасли Казахстана. 2024. Т. 6, №4. C. 78–86. doi: 10.54859/kjogi108800.2.Жантурин Ж.К., Канбетов А.Ш., Мусрепова А.Т. Методы оценки эффективности геолого-технических мероприятии // Universum: Технические науки. 2020. 3.1 (72.1). С 24–29.3.Эфендиев Г.М., Джанзаков И.И., Жантурин Ж.К., Мусрепова А.Т. К вопросам принятие решений по выбору ГТМ в условиях месторождения западного Казахстана на основе стратегического анализа. // Мультидисциплинарный научный журнал «Архивариус». 2019. №11 (44). С. 13–14.4.Абасов М.Т., Эфендиев Г.М., Стреков А.С., и др. Оценка сравнительной эффективности геолого-технических мероприятий с использованием комплексной информации // Нефтяное хозяйство. 2003. № 10. С. 70–73.5.Абасов М.Т., Стреков А.С., Эфендиев Г.М. Повышение эффективности изоляции нагнетательных скважин полимерными растворами // Известия НАН Азербайджана. Науки о Земле. 2000. № 2. С. 95–98.6.Казаков А.А. Гиперболический закон в методах характеристик вытеснения // Научно-технические достижения и передовой опыт, рекомендуемые для внедрения в нефтяной промышленности. 1991. № 3. С. 6–10.7.Лысенко В.Д. Оценка эффективности мероприятий по увеличению добычи нефти и конечной нефтеотдачи // Нефтяное хозяйство. 2001. № 12. С. 49–54.8.Тузельбаева С.Р. Научно-методические аспекты системы сбора и анализа информации и принятия решений при разработке месторождений с трудноизвлекаемыми запасами : дис. ... PhD. Алматы, 2025.9.Крумбейн У.К., Кауфман М.Е., Мак-Каммон Р.Б. Модели геологических процессов. Москва : Мир, 1973. 151 с.10.Anderson T.W. An Introduction to Multivariate Statistical Analysis. New York : John Wiley & Sons, 1958.11.Kendall M.G. A Course in Multivariate Analysis. London : Charles Griffin & Company, 1957.12.Rao C.R. The use and interpretation of principal component analysis in applied research // Sankhya. 1964. Vol. 26. P. 329–358.13.Zadeh L.A. Fuzzy sets // Information and Control. 1965. Vol. 8, No. 3. P. 338–353. doi: 10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X.