IPA18-582-E

PROCEEDINGS, INDONESIAN PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION

Forty-Second Annual Convention & Exhibition, May 2018

ELECTRICAL SUBMERSIBLE PUMP (ESP) PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS USING FUZZY

EXPERT SYSTEM WITH LIMITED SURVEILLANCE DATA IN X FIELD

R.A. Wibawa*
T.H. Dwiputranto*
D. Wilantara*
R. Indra*

ABSTRACT wells will be tested twice in a month and once in a

X Field is a mature waterflood field with huge
number of production wells (>1,000 wells).
Currently, 100% of wells are producing with
Electrical Submersible Pumps (ESPs) as the artificial
lift method with wide range of production rate
between 100 BFPD – 18,000 BFPD. A fast and
robust tool is required to monitor those wells so that
proactive action can be taken to restore production
and prevent oil loss due to unexpected down time
caused by ESP failure.
This paper illustrates the application of Fuzzy Logic
(FL) approach to develop detection tool of ESP
failure symptoms using limited surveillance data
such as production rate, ampere, and working fluid
level. Diagnosis is performed by processing trend of
each parameter in several evaluation windows within
set of expert rules. It allows production engineers to
monitor ESP performance and recognize early signs
of gradual failure before it becomes more severe over
running time and focus can be prioritized for the
most severe wells. This analysis is powerful in stable
condition with long historical data in order to have
clear trend. It is not intended to be used in unstable
condition such as start up or sudden failure due to
power outage. After 12 months tool implementation,
it is successful to add more than 61 MBO to
production from 28 proactive pump replacement jobs
that has been proposed based on the tool detection.
INTRODUCTION
X field is a mature water flood field that has been
producing for more than 50 years. There are over
1,000 producing wells using ESPs as the artificial lift
method with wide range of production rate between
100 BFPD – 18,000 BFPD. Regular data
measurement is coming from production test and
sonolog with different frequency for each well
depend on production clusters. High oil production
month for low oil production wells. ESPs monitoring
is quite challenging for very large number of wells
even more the amount of measured data is limited
and data acquisition is infrequently. ESPs
performance monitoring and analysis for each well
can be very time-consuming and inconsistent depend
on experiences of the person who performs the
analysis. When the system reaches equilibrium
condition after a while ESP start to operate with
certain reservoir pressure support, the system will
behave as designed where production rate, fluid
level, and ampere load are relatively constant.
Unless, there are changes in the system that will be
reflected by the surveillance data and creating certain
pattern that lead to certain failure symptoms.
Developing ESP failure condition frequently
accompanied by decreasing fluid production so that
the pump doesn’t produce as expected.
The methodology presented in this paper is powerful
in stable condition with long historical data in order
to have clear trend and it is not intended to be used
in unstable conditions such as failure when start up
the pump or sudden failure due to power outage. By
having early sign of ESP failure, we expect to do
proactive job prior the pump totally fail (not
producing any fluid). It is expected to minimize Loss
Potential Oil (LPO) by early restoring well
production and avoid down time due to waiting on
rig execution after the pump is totally failed. The
shaded rectangular area below the dashed line
subtracted by red area of right-angled trapezium in
Figure 1 is the incremental fluid production as the
impact of proactive pump replacement job from early
production recovery and LPO avoidance due to
waiting on rig execution. The rig execution is the
time interval between the well begin to fail totally
and start execution of reactive job. There are some
efforts that have been progressing in the recent years
to develop ESP performance analysis using FL
concept (Thornhill et al. 2009, Bermudez et al.

* Chevron Pacific Indonesia

2014). However, this paper demonstrates the
application of fuzzy logic to analyze early ESP
failure using limited number of signals (production
rate, ampere, and fluid level) and relatively less data
frequency.
Fuzzy Logic
Unlike the conventional logic that only look at the
things in a bivalent manner like black and white, true
or false, yes or no, and 0 or 1, FL consider the
concept of partial truth. It is in harmony with human
thinking or reasoning process where we
communicate in vague or imprecise word to explain
our thought. FL allows us to compute with the words
so that the experts are no longer forced to represent
their knowledge in a language that machine can
understand. The idea of FL is growing rapidly with
many applications in various industries and become
an influential factor in many advance intelligent
systems (Mohaghegh, 2000). In general, we will find
some important components in FL such as:
1. Fuzzy Set
As mentioned in previous section, conventional logic
takes exactly one belong to full membership of a
group. Meanwhile, in FL one can belong to more
than one group with different degree of membership
(partial membership). The difference between
conventional and fuzzy set are shown in Figure 2.
Widely known fuzzy set is made up from triangular
or trapezoidal or Gaussian or generalized bell
membership function.
2. Rules
Rules represent expert reasoning process that
described using vague or imprecise word that
contains antecedent and consequent (if-then). When
decisions are made based on fuzzy linguistics
variable (low, medium, high) with fuzzy-set operator
(and, or), it is called by approximate reasoning
process. It mimics expert’s reasoning process more
realistically than the conventional expert system
does. The number of rules impacted dramatically by
the number of variable and fuzzy sets. This is called
by “the curse of dimensionality” (Mohaghegh,
2000).
3. Fuzzy Inference System (FIS)
FIS involves all the pieces that described previously
such as fuzzy set or membership function, fuzzy-set
operator, and rules. It covers parts from fuzzification
through defuzzification. It is the process of mapping
from a given input to an output using FL. The input
variables will be evaluated by all the rules. The
structure of FIS is shown in Figure 3.
Fuzzy logic provides a method to represent non-
statistical uncertainty and approximate reasoning,
which include operations used to make inference.
Frequently, we deal with this kind of uncertainty as
the result of imprecision, vagueness, and ambiguity
of the information about the problem we are trying to
solve (Mohaghegh, 2000). We find many things with
this type of uncertainty in petroleum engineering
related problems. In example, there are several
applications such as Exploration (Weiss, 2001),
petrophysics (Cuddy, 1998), well placement (Popa,
2013), well intervention (Popa, 2004), well
stimulation (Xiong, 1995), etc.
METHODS
The tool was developed using excel spreadsheet to
retrieve the data within current pump production
period (the data used is started from the pump
installation date), determine the slope, transform into
normalization value of slope, process in FIS, and
generate the degree of truth for each failure
condition. Then, the engineer can make prioritization
to conduct analysis and prepare proactive pump
replacement job if needed to restore fluid production.
As mentioned in previous section, surveillance data
come from sonolog and production test resulting the
data as follow:
 Fluid Rate (BFPD)
 Oil Rate (BOPD)
 Water Cut - WC (%)
 Ampere (Amps)
 Tubing Pressure (psig)
 Working Fluid Level – WFL (ft)
ESP is designed to produce fluid at a given rate and
pressure at the surface (Thornhill et al. 2009). So, it
does make sense to consider BFPD as important
signals to detect developing ESP failure condition.
The fact that X field is mature waterflood field with
high water cut value (average WC is 99.3%)
distributed within short range between 97% - 100%
then it can be assumed WC is not significant as well
as BOPD for our purpose to detect ESP failure
symptoms. We will not use tubing pressure as a
signal in this method since the trend will be
proportional to the trend of fluid rate. It will be
beneficial to use tubing pressure to detect condition
such as tubing plug but with existence another data
such as Pump Discharge Pressure. Moreover, tubing
plug is not common failure condition that we found
in X field based on Dismantle Inspection Failure
Analysis (DIFA). Fewer variables will reduce the
number of rules and it is better to keep the model
simple but still capable to fulfill our goal. In
conclusion, we use only three signals in order to
detect ESP failure symptoms such as:
 Fluid Rate (BFPD)
 Ampere (Amps)
 Working Fluid Level – WFL (ft)
The more detailed method is divided into several
steps:
Step 1: Data Preparation
Data quality control has been conducted by assessing
outliers and possibility of equipment reading error
prior inputted to the database. Moreover, it is
necessary to ensure the data cover stable production
period with no change in operational parameter
because some of wells are equipped with Variable
Speed Drive that allow to change frequency in the
middle of the pump is still running that will impact
to production rate.
Step 2: Calculate the slope
The data will be divided into 4 backwards evaluation
windows 60 days, 90 days, 180 days, and full data
since pump installation date. This will make it easy
to see the development of ESP failure as the time
goes by. The slope is calculated using Equation 1
(Bermudez et al. 2014):
∑
……………………….. (1)
∑
Where:
∑ condition 2. Proactive pump replacement jobs in
∑ information to improve pump performance in the
Step 3: Slope Normalization
There is various type of pump and motor that
installed in X field with different size and capacities.
To simplify the process behind the tool, a
membership function that fit for all ESPs was
developed by using normalized slope value. The
method has been introduced in ESP Fuzzy Logic
based smart flow (Bermudez et al. 2014).
………. (2)
The value ranges between -1 to 1 where the positive
value indicates the slope is increasing while the
negative value indicates the slope is decreasing.
Table 1 show the result of this step.
Step 4: Fuzzy Inference System (FIS)
Normalized value for each signal is transformed
using membership function where the value will
belong to each category “Increasing” or
“Decreasing” with different degree of membership
between 0 – 1. Figure 4 is the membership function
that has been used for all three signals. The next
process is to evaluate the value in each of rule that
described in Table 2. Below is the description for
each suspected failure condition indicated by the
trend of three signals:
 Condition 1: Pump Wear/Broken Pump
Shaft/Tubing Leak/Plugged Intake
 Condition 2: Low Reservoir Influx
 Condition 3: Overload
Figure 5 is the dashboard visualization showing the
result of FIS. The bar values shown by Figure 5 use
the evaluation result of each rule as degree of failure.
Increasing bar value to the right indicates the failure
condition is getting more severe due to increasing
slope value. By having more variable will allow us
to differentiate more specific failure condition which
demonstrated in reference (Bermudez et al. 2014).
However, it is still possible to make decision even
though with three variables as discussed in this
paper. The history of DIFA shows that pump wear or
broken pump shaft is the most likely to happen rather
than tubing leak or plugged intake case under
condition 1, sand production case under condition 3,
and decreasing reservoir pressure case under
address to overcome ESP failure due to condition 1.
Other detected conditions are useful as preliminary
next workover plan. They need the proper solution
that must be reviewed more comprehensive and the
solutions might require improving reservoir
performance or sand control or other techniques.
This paper is discussing more about condition 1.
Figure 6 show the pump inspection result of well 1
that indicate ESP parts already worn out.
Step 5: Proactive Pump Replacement Job
In this step, job plan was proposed and executed
while the pump is still producing without waiting the
pump totally failed (proactive). Current installed
pump is changed with the new one with similar size
and capacity. For one year project in control phase,
there are 28 jobs that has been proposed and executed
based on the tool detection.
RESULT
The tool detection result has been confirmed with the
result of DIFA to match with the actual root cause.
Fuzzy Logic based tool application has been using
since early February 2016. The project time frame
started from Feb 2016 – Jan 2017 before it can be
applied to other fields. The observation shows
tremendous result from 28 proactive pump
replacement jobs proposal. It is successful to add
more than 61 MBO to the production from early well
production recovery and LPO avoidance as
explained by Figure 1. The example of well data
profile before and after proactive pump replacement
job is shown by Figure 7.
CONCLUSIONS
FL is a good method to handle imprecise concept
with its ability to mimic expert reasoning process.
One of application is to represent ESP failure
symptoms as described in this paper. It is easily to
understand since the computation use vague word
like “Decreasing” and “Increasing”. The tool is quite
robust to detect and to prioritize the well based on the
degree of failure. It is helpful for the engineers to
monitor ESPs performance efficiently and to make
better decision. Even though only three signals have
been used, the meaningful analysis still can be
obtained to make justified decision in order to
replace the ESP earlier. However, more variables and
denser data frequency will be beneficial to capture
more failure modes and to be more responsive to the
changing of trend.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank PT Chevron Pacific
Indonesia and Direktorat Jenderal Minyak dan Gas
Bumi (DITJEN MIGAS) for their permission to
publish this paper. Our special thanks to Sumatera
Light Oil Asset Optimization Team and Integrated
Optimization Decision Support Center (IODSC)
team for their support in carrying out the project and
investigation work.
REFERENCES
Bermudez, F.,Carvajal, G.A., Moricca G.,Dhar J.,
Adam F.Md., Al-Jasmi A., Goel H.K., and Nasr H.,
2014, Fuzzy Logic Application to Monitor and
Predict Unexpected Behaviour in Electrical
Submersible Pumps (Part of the KwIDF Project):
SPE Intelligence Energy Conference and Exhibition
Cuddy, S.J., Putnam, T.W., 1998, Litho-Facies and
Permeability Prediction from Electrical Logs using
Fuzzy Logic: Society of Petroleum Engineers
Mohaghegh, S., 2000, Virtual-Intelligence
Applications in Petroleum Engineering: Part 3 –
Fuzzy Logic: Society of Petroleum Engineers
Popa, A., 2013, Identification of Horizontal Well
Placement Using Fuzzy Logic: Society of Petroleum
Engineers
Popa, C., Popa, A., Cover, A., 2004, Zonal
Allocation and Increased Production Opportunities
Using Data Mining in Kern River: Society of
Petroleum Engineers
Thornhill, G.D., Zhu, D., 2009, Fuzzy Analysis of
ESP System Performance: SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition
Weiss, W.W., Balch, R.S., Broadhead, R.F, 2001,
Risk Reduction with a Fuzzy-Expert Exploration
Tool: Society of Petroleum Engineers
Xiong, H., Holditch, S.A., 1995, An Investigation
Into the Application of Fuzzy Logic to Well
Stimulation Treatment Design: Society of Petroleum
Engineers
 TABLE 1

EXAMPLE OF NORMALIZED SLOPE FROM 5 WELLS IN X FIELD

Normalized Slope
Well last installed pump 180 Days 90 Days 60 Days
BFPD AMP WFL BFPD AMP WFL BFPD AMP WFL BFPD AMP WFL
Well 1 ‐0.050171 ‐0.000257 ‐0.038629 ‐0.841704 ‐0.027807 ‐0.514718 ‐0.749821 ‐0.033161 ‐0.033161 ‐0.853401 ‐0.055475 ‐0.661675
Well 2 ‐0.382184 ‐0.004836 0.333768 ‐0.735090 ‐0.016171 0.849445 ‐0.863388 ‐0.029366 0.926983 ‐0.802889 ‐0.037927 0.973627
Well 3 ‐0.509672 0.002668 ‐0.087516 ‐0.715870 0.002131 0.163850 ‐0.391064 0.011954 0.004270 ‐0.531555 0.012534 0.223998
Well 4 ‐0.310884 ‐0.013597 ‐0.286660 ‐0.892871 ‐0.031449 ‐0.751886 ‐0.972354 ‐0.090227 ‐0.841762 ‐0.980327 ‐0.119332 ‐0.884999
Well 5 ‐0.456399 ‐0.000152 ‐0.180216 ‐0.945949 ‐0.015553 ‐0.451271 ‐0.984996 ‐0.061918 ‐0.632679 ‐0.992618 ‐0.130422 ‐0.720668

TABLE 2

RULE SETS

Rules Fluid Rate Ampere WFL

Condition 1 Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing
Condition 2 Decreasing Increasing Increasing/Decreasing
Condition 3 Decreasing Decreasing Increasing

 
 Figure 1 - Typical Fluid Production with Indication of ESP Failure

Figure 2 - Difference Crisp and Fuzzy Set

 
 Figure 3 - The Structure of FIS

Figure 4 - Membership Function

Figure 5 - Degree of Failure for Each Condition

 
 Figure 6 - The DIFA result of Well 1

 
 Figure 7 - Well Data Profile Before and After Proactive Pump Replacement Job