ActionWell ActionWell
Assess my portfolio
Assess my portfolio

Platform

The evidence behind your next production opportunity

Move from the portfolio to the well, understand the production pattern and assess the next action with your engineers.

Assess my portfolio
  1. 01Portfolio
  2. 02Investigation
  3. 03Engineering review
  4. 04Action assessment

01Portfolio coverage

See which wells deserve attention

Explore production histories and changes across the asset. Open the wells and groups that merit investigation, with the evidence behind each priority.

Public-record research · Asset names hidden Enlarge the image
Asset A from the air: production columns with legend, the field-total card (+1.3%) and the leading well’s marker.
Imagery: USDA NAIP 2024 via ND GIS Hub · © Mapbox · © OpenStreetMap · © Maxar

02Engineering investigation

The full history changes the question

Public-record research · Asset names hidden

In one North Dakota field, a 1.3% increase concealed a 22% decline across the other 35 producers. The next question is whether the concentrated increase will last.

Field oil, July 2025–June 2026 against the preceding twelve months.

Asset A: field oil 214,539 → 217,285 bbl, bridged by well A-1 (+47,373) and the other 35 producers (−44,627, −22%); decision supported: production planning. Enlarge the image

In another field, a well fell sharply in April and later recovered above its earlier producing-day rate. That later evidence belongs in any decision about remedial work.

Oil per producing day: July–December 2025 baseline, April 2026 and August 2026; three windows, not a monthly series.

Asset B: oil per producing day for four wells on one scale; B-4 16 → 1.5 → 55 bbl per producing day; decision supported: reassess the case for remedial work. Watch the two-minute investigationFrom a signal to a decision · 1:54

Connect the production pattern with operating events, tests and engineering context to assess the response.

03Engineering review

One correction can guide the next analysis

Record the assumption, the reason for changing it and the cases where the correction belongs. The next engineer can inspect that judgment and the work it affects.

Recorded product workflow · Demo engineer

Well C-1, reported oil per calendar day: the corrected window January 2018 to April 2019 with its own recalculated curve, beside the engineer’s reason, “Separate the later production interval.” Watch the 90-second workflowKeep the reason, improve the next review · 1:30

04Action assessment

Rank the work by the value it can deliver

With your operating records and economic inputs, assess feasible work, the expected response and the cost of execution. Compare it with waiting or collecting more information. Your engineers review the case. Your team decides what to fund.

Target workflow · Decision package
Proposed actionExpected responseFull costUncertaintyNext decision
Leave as isCurrent trajectory against the reviewed baselineNoneRange of the baseline forecastReview with the next production data
Gather more evidenceNarrows the explanations still openTest cost and deferred productionReduced once the result is inDecide after the result
Proposed workEngineer’s estimate, with range and durationWork, downtime and program costStated with the estimateApprove, defer or return for evidence

05Decision history

Keep the decision connected to what happens next

The intended workflow links the planned response, approved work, actual cost and subsequent production. That history can improve the next investigation and show whether a decision delivered value.

Target workflow · Illustrative baseline
Illustrative baseline forecast 0 200 400 history data vintage forecast BBL/D OIL
Measured oilBaseline forecastIllustrative range

The baseline is an operating reference, separate from reserves estimation.

Apply the workflow to your portfolio

Start with one asset and the production question your team wants to resolve.

Assess my portfolio
From a signal to a decision · 1:54Public-record research · Asset names hidden
Transcript: on-screen findings and narration
  1. Which production changes deserve engineering time — and which justify spending money? Which production changes deserve engineering time, and which justify spending money? The answer starts with the evidence behind each well.
  2. Asset A: production columns (reported oil, Jul 2025–Jun 2026; color: change vs prior year). Field total +1.3% (214,539 → 217,285 bbl). Well A-1: +47,373 bbl. ActionWell connects production patterns with the evidence needed to evaluate those decisions. Start above the asset: the map already shows where performance differs.
  3. Asset A · field oil, twelve months each. Here, field production rose just over one percent.
  4. 214,539 bbl → well A-1 +47,373 → other 35 producers, together, −44,627 (−22%) → 217,285 bbl. Decision supported: production planning. Can the concentrated increase be sustained? But one well added more than forty-seven thousand barrels while the other thirty-five producers together declined twenty-two percent. The planning question is whether that concentrated increase can be sustained.
  5. Missing discriminator · operating history of well A-1: +47,373 bbl = 59,017 bbl (Jul 2025–Jun 2026) − 11,644 bbl (Jul 2024–Jun 2025). Source: monthly production reports; well work and allocation records not yet in hand. Before relying on the field total: separate the underlying trend from the concentrated increase. Review its operating history and separate the underlying trend before relying on the field total.
  6. Regional view on the way to Asset B (reported oil −20.7% vs prior year). The second asset raises a different spending question.
  7. Asset B · oil per producing day, April 2026 vs baseline (Jul–Dec 2025): B-1 17 → 84, B-2 15 → 84, B-3 21 → 66, B-4 16 → 1.5. Three wells rose while a fourth fell.
  8. Four wells, one scale, bbl per producing day. Dated nearby activity: completions N-1–N-5, Feb 27–Mar 10, 2026, 1.03–1.06 km from B-2 (surface distance) · timing overlaps the rate step. Cause unresolved · timing alone does not establish a cause. A nearby completion overlaps the period, but timing alone does not establish the cause.
  9. The months after April (three windows, not a monthly history): in Aug 2026, B-1 52, B-2 29, B-3 40 and B-4 55 bbl per producing day — B-4 16 → 1.5 → 55. Decision supported: reassess the case for remedial work. Is the April decline a continuing problem? Reconcile first: well tests · work history · allocation. By August, the fourth well was above its earlier producing-day rate. If you are considering remedial work, that later evidence belongs in the decision. Reconcile tests, work history, and allocation before treating the April decline as a continuing problem.
  10. Assessment goal — the next stage, with owner records: owner records → qualified options (feasible actions, including doing nothing) → costs and uncertainty → engineering review → owner decision. A target workflow · no estimate or outcome is shown here. With owner records, the next stage is to compare feasible actions, expected production response, costs, and uncertainty. Engineers review the technical case; owners decide what to fund.
  11. Asset A · decision supported: plan production with the base trend visible (evidence still needed: operating history of the uplift). Asset B · decision supported: review current evidence before funding remedial work (evidence still needed: well tests, work history and allocation). One case informs the production plan. The other informs whether work is justified.
  12. ActionWell finds hidden production opportunities across your portfolio. Start with one asset. actionwell.com ActionWell finds hidden production opportunities across your portfolio. Start with one asset.
Keep the reason, improve the next review · 1:30Recorded product workflow · Demo engineer
Transcript: on-screen findings and narration
  1. Production columns: reported oil, Jul 2025–Jun 2026; color shows the change vs the prior year (within ±2% neutral). Recorded example · well C-1 · oil: automatic analysis, not reviewed. A production history can contain several distinct intervals. Each needs to be understood in its own context.
  2. Well C-1 · reported oil per calendar day, every month (bbl per calendar day; full history 2014–2026). Automatic intervals: 2015, 2016–17, 2018–25. Selected window: Jan 2018–Aug 2025. Data · public monthly reports. ActionWell identifies candidate intervals automatically. The engineer can inspect the evidence and the analysis within each one.
  3. What is wrong with this window: one curve spans 88 months; production behavior changes inside the window. Evidence · change screen: from May 2019, a sustained rise to a new level, ×1.82 against Sep 2018–Apr 2019. Here, one window includes observations that follow a different production trend.
  4. Separate the later production interval. The engineer’s correction (demo profile, fictional): “End this window at the production change. The later observations follow a different trend and should be analyzed separately.” The observations after the change are ringed; the window’s right edge moves to the change (corrected window). The engineer explains the correction: end this window at the change and analyze the later interval separately.
  5. Recalculated: window Jan 2018–Apr 2019 · 16 observations · a descriptive curve, not a forecast. The other intervals stay visible. The boundary moves. The selected analysis updates, while the full history and the other intervals remain visible.
  6. Saved with the correction · read back from the record: the reason (the engineer’s words, kept verbatim); the evidence (a sustained change of level at May 2019, from the window’s own change screen); what changed (window revision 1: the end moves from Aug 2025 to Apr 2019). Demo profile, fictional · local, unauthenticated. ActionWell keeps the correction together with its reason and supporting evidence. The next review can trace exactly what changed and why.
  7. Another well, C-11 · the same reasoning, its own evidence: a sustained rise from Dec 2023 (×2.22); its window now ends Nov 2023, before its own change (provisional, awaiting review). Protected · reviewed well C-2: its reviewed result is kept; an impact notice asks a person to compare. On another relevant well, that reasoning guides the review. The boundary comes from that well’s evidence. Reviewed results stay protected.
  8. Where the reasoning applies (this recorded example): 12 wells checked · updated: 7 wells, each at its own change · protected: 1 reviewed result kept, with a notice · not applicable: 4 wells without such a change. Saved as a provisional rule · engineering endorsement: none. This is how engineering judgment becomes useful across a portfolio: the team keeps the reasoning and applies it where it fits.
  9. ActionWell. Keep the reason. Improve the next review. Assess my portfolio. actionwell.com ActionWell. Keep the reason. Improve the next review.
Asset A from the airPublic-record research · Asset names hidden
Asset A from the air: production columns with legend, the field-total card (+1.3%) and the leading well’s marker.

A frame of the two-minute investigation video. Imagery: USDA NAIP 2024 via ND GIS Hub; © Mapbox, © OpenStreetMap, © Maxar. Press Escape or the close button to return.
Asset A: one well and the other 35 producersPublic-record research · Asset names hidden
Asset A: field oil 214,539 → 217,285 bbl, bridged by well A-1 (+47,373) and the other 35 producers (−44,627, −22%); decision supported: production planning.

A frame of the two-minute investigation video. Imagery: USDA NAIP 2024 via ND GIS Hub; © Mapbox, © OpenStreetMap, © Maxar. Press Escape or the close button to return.