IPA16-169-SE
PROCEEDINGS, INDONESIAN PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION
Fortieth Annual Convention & Exhibition, May 2016
BOTTOM-HOLE FLOWING PRESSURE CALCULATION IN DEVIATED MULTIPHASE FLOW
GAS WELLS USING ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK (ANN) - A CASE STUDY IN THE TUNU
GAS FIELD, TOTAL E&P INDONÉSIE
Haniyyah Hasna*
Dadik Hendra Kusuma**
ABSTRACT
TUNU is a mature gas field located in the Mahakam
Delta of East Kalimantan, Indonesia that has been
producing since 1990. Currently, there are ± 360
active producing wells with a total production of ±
600 MMSCFD.
Well monitoring (SGS, FGS, PLT, etc.) is an
important job in the Tunu field. In 2015, there are ±
850 jobs performing static and flowing gradient
surveys. The objective of this well intervention is to
understand the bottom hole flowing and shut in
pressure (BHFP/BHSP). This huge operation is
impacting significantly on cost and safety (barge
mobilization, rig-up/down, etc).
BHFP can be estimated using vertical flow
correlations that are available in production
engineering software. Among correlations available,
not all of them are fit or relevant with actual
conditions. The available correlations are acceptable
for high gas rate wells while they give high errors
(> 25%) at low gas rate (< 2 MMSCFD), whereas in
TUNU today 64% of them are flowing at this
condition. Therefore, another approach such as
Artificial Neural Network (ANN) is required to
calculate BHFP.
The actual BHFP data were gathered and then
imported into the ANN models. The model training
inputs used are gas rate, condensate gas ratio
(CGR), water gas ratio (WGR), tubing diameter,
measured depth (MD) and true vertical depth
(TVD).
In this paper, ANN techniques were applied to
predict BHFP and proved to have better prediction
and performance. Back-propagation (BP) method is
used in building the neural network to modify the
fitting to achieve higher prediction accuracy and
broaden the prediction range. The result is then
compared to the existing correlations. ANN has
* Institute of Technology Bandung
** TOTAL E&P Indonesie
proven to give a better result (error ± 4.32%) than
the existing correlations in prediction of BHFP in
deviated gas wells.
INTRODUCTION
Tunu is a gas field located in Mahakam River Delta
of East Kalimantan, Indonesia. It extends 75 Km
long and 18 Km wide from north to south along the
Mahakam River Delta coastline and covers almost
1350 square kilometers. Currently gas production is
± 600 MMSCFD. The reservoirs are characterized
as multilayered reservoirs with perforated
producing zones ranging from (MD) 600 m to 5100
m.
Today, there are ± 360 wells flowing in Tunu field.
The production distribution can be seen in the
Figure 2. Tunu is a mature field and ± 66% of
production is dominated by gas well production of
less than 2 MMSCFD, while only 15% of wells are
producing more than 4 MMSCFD.
Based on Turner liquid loading criteria, ± 64% of
wells are categorized as loaded wells, meaning that
the gas velocity is less than the terminal velocity to
lift water droplets, so potentially the well could die
easily if the liquid droplets are accumulated in the
wellbore. This parameter is also important to see
that vertical lift performance (VLP) correlations
only work well on steady state condition (non-
loaded wells). In other words, the available VLP
correlations will not be satisfied for ± 64% of wells
in the Tunu field.
Predicting pressure drop in production strings
accurately is essential for production and cost
optimization, also in forecasting the performance of
the well through its life cycle. Since mechanical
measurement using pressure gauges to measure
bottom-hole pressure is costly and not feasible in
certain conditions, several correlations for
multiphase flow in gas wells have been developed
to calculate pressure drop in production strings in
gas wells.
There are many factors contributing to the
complexity of the calculation of pressure drop, such
as fluids properties, pipe configurations, deviation
of well and flow rate of fluids. However, most of
these correlations were developed under laboratory
conditions and are consequently inaccurate when
scaled-up to gas field conditions. Hence, most of the
methods cannot handle a wide variety of data sets
and only work well under certain conditions.
Recent studies have produced a new technique,
Artificial Neural Network (ANN), and this has been
adopted to solve many oil and gas industry
problems. This paper presents a model to predict
bottom-hole pressure using Artificial Neural
Network techniques. The model was developed and
tested using 154 sets of field data collected from the
Tunu Gas Field. These data sets were divided into
training, validation and testing by the ratio of
14:3:3. The model is compared with the existing
correlations.
Artificial Neural Network
Artificial Neural Network is a computational
method that mimics a biological neural network
system. This method uses the calculation of non-
linear element basis, called neuron, organized as
uses within the network are interconnected, so is
similar with biological neuron systems. Commonly,
neural networks are adjusted, or trained, so that a
particular input leads to a specific target output.
The network is basically determined by three
parameters, the interconnection pattern between the
different layers of neurons, the learning process for
updating the weights of the interconnections and the
activation function that converts a neurons weighted
input to its output activation.
A feed-forward network of ANN consists of 3 parts
of structure which are input layer, hidden layer and
output layer. Input layer is used as the storage of
input parameters. These neurons will only forward
the information to the next stage. The next stage is
hidden layer. Hidden layer consists of several
hidden neurons and sometimes several hidden
layers. These hidden neurons connect input and
outputs, and also brings certain weights or biased in
the network in order to compute the inputs into the
nearest target. The connections between the nodes
determine the information flow between nodes. The
interactions of nodes through the connections will
lead the network to a global behavior (emergent),
which will then be processed to output layer. Output
layer is the target layer of the problems.
Back-propagation (BP) algorithm is used in feed-
forward ANN. Feed-forward means that the
artificial neurons are organized in layers and send
their signals “forward”, and then the errors are
propagated backwards. The backpropagation
method used supervised learning, which means that
we provide the algorithm with examples of the
inputs and outputs we want the network to compute,
and the backpropagation algorithm is used to reduce
this error until the ANN learns the training data.
The training begins with random weights and the
goal is to adjust them so than the error will be
minimal.
One interaction of nodes consists of summing
function, activation function and output function.
The activation function of the artificial neurons
implementing the backpropagation algorithm is a
weighted sum. The most common output function is
the sigmoidal function. The backpropagation
algorithm now calculates how the error depends on
the output, inputs and weights.
DATA COLLECTION
A total of 154 screened data sets were collected
from the Tunu gas field. Ten variables believed to
affect the pressure drop were collected as input
variables. These included gas rate, condensate-gas-
ratio (CGR, which represents the condensate rate
produced), water-gas-ratio (WGR, which represents
the water rate produced), gas gravity, condensate
gravity, tubing diameter, measured depth (MD), and
true vertical depth (TVD), and .
The inputs for developing the model cover a gas
rate from 0.2 to 10.40 MMSCFD.The summary of
data distribution can be seen in Table 1.
METHODOLOGY
Carefully reviewing the previous studies on bottom-
hole pressure calculation using ANN, the bottom-
hole pressure was directly set as the output of the
model. Hence, for each bottom-hole pressure
estimation, there is only one calculation performed
over the entire length of the well, which means that
after receiving the values for input variables, the
model responds only once and provides an answer.
Because the pressure gradient changes along the
entire well, it is almost unrealistic to calculate an
average pressure gradient and multiply it by the
well length to get an adequate answer. Therefore, in
this study, the well measured length is broken down
into segments and calculates the pressure drop in
each segment. This piece-wise calculation focuses
on short length of segment and is not affected by the
total length. We call this piece-wise method the
fixed MD method.
This method predicts the pressure every 100 m
(MD) from the wellhead until the top of the
producing reservoir to get the final bottom-hole
pressure.
In this study, the results of estimation of prediction
BHFP using ANN will then be compared with
correlations that is commonly used for gas wells,
such as: Duns and Ros Modified, Olga 2P, Olga 3P,
Gray, Petroleum Expert, and Wellsim.
MODEL DEVELOPMENT
The training used actual data obtained from
production logging. We divided the well measured
length into segments of 100 m. The training used
Lavenberg-Marquardt back-propagation method,
and sigmoid activation function. The target error of
the training is 10%. If the targeted error is not
reached, the model will retrain until the targeted
error is reached.
The inputs contain 9 input neurons (9 input
parameters) which are gas rate, condensate-gas-ratio
(CGR, which represents the condensate rate
produced), water-gas-ratio (WGR, which represents
the water rate produced), gas gravity, condensate
gravity, tubing diameter, measured depth (MD),
true vertical depth (TVD) and Pn-1.
In developing the models, these data sets were then
randomly divided into three different groups,
training, validation and testing. The training set is
used to develop and adjust the weights in a network.
The validation set is used to ensure the
generalization of the developed network. The
testing set is used to examine the final performance
of the network. These data sets were divided by
ratio of 14:3:3 (0.70:0.15:0.15).
As for the hidden layer, there is no guideline to
follow to determine the optimum number of
neurons, except by trial and error. Small hidden-
layer numbers make the model too simple to handle
complex problems. Although larger hidden-layer
numbers appear to increase prediction accuracy, too
large of a number can cause over-fitting problems.
To avoid over-fitting and also ensure the model
complexity, the hidden-layer neuron number ranges
from 5 to 12 neurons in this study. With trial and
error, it is found that the number of hidden-layer
neurons that gives the least error is 7.
The only output is Pn (pressure on the bottom of the
segment) which will then eventually iterates until it
reaches top of producing reservoir and get the final
bottom-hole pressure.
The developed ANN model utilizes multiple layer
feed forward networks, which were selected due to
their capabilities of representing non-linear
functional mappings between inputs and outputs. To
summarize, the developed model consists of 1 input
layer (9 input neurons), 1 hidden layer (7 hidden
neurons), and 1 output layer (1 output neuron).
In developing the model, the training used the
collected data. However, the Pn-1 is obtained from
the actual data on purpose so that the model is as
nearest as it can be to the actual condition.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
To test the network, the data collected was used in
both training and validation stages. The data used in
training stage uses data from actual measurement
during production logging (the Pn-1 in each segment
uses actual data). While in validation stage, the data
collected were also used, however, the Pn-1 as one of
the inputs were imported from the output of the
previous segment (see Figure 3).
Training
The training stage of the piece-wise calculation uses
actual data from production logging. The final
absolute average error of training phase is 1%.
Validation
The validation stage of the piece-wise calculation
uses the data collected. However, the Pn-1 as one of
the inputs was imported from the output of the
previous segment (see Figure 4).
The validation of the network gives a final absolute
average error of 4.32%. The results from the other 6
existing correlations are also shown in Figure 6.
From this result, it should be noted that Wellsim
Correlation and Olga 2P Correlation gives second
and third best results respectively.
The figure below (Figure 8) shows that with the
result of ANN and other VLP correlations, the error
is increasing at lower production gas rate. It can be
explained that at a lower gas rate, wells are more
un-stable due to less capability to lift the liquid. In
normal practice, the minimum velocity to lift the
liquid is described as turner rate.
From Figure 10, we can see that the available
correlations give biggest error at gas rate under 2
MMSCFD. However, for ANN this gives a stable
error even though at a smaller gas rate. It could be
concluded that the ANN model developed is quite
accurate for Tunu field.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The ANN model was successful developed for
the Tunu gas field and provides better accuracy
compared to other standard vertical lift
performance (VLP) correlation. The ANN
model for Tunu field provides an absolute
average error of 4.32%. Meanwhile standard
VLP correlation > 18% error (see Table 2).
2. The ANN outperforms the available
correlations for gas wells (available in
PROSPERTM) for any gas rate. The ANN gives
outstanding results especially at wells with gas
rate lower than 2 MMSCFD compared to any
available correlations for gas wells (available in
PROSPERTM). This is very important for the
Tunu field, since ±64% of wells produce < 2
MMSCFD.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank Total E&P
Indonésie (especially to FO/WPT) for the
opportunity of On Job Training (OJT) Program on
summer 2015, special thanks to Matthieu
Deleersnyder and Delint Ira Setyo Adi for their
support, guidance and help during the study.
Also, the authors would also like to thank
Mathematics and Petroleum Engineering of
Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB).
REFERENCES
Fausett, Laurene. 1994. Fundamental of Neural
Networks Architectures, Algorithms, and
Application. South Carolina: Prentice Hall.
Demuth, Howard., Beale, Mark. 2002. Neural
Network Toolbox: For Use with MATLAB®.
Massachusets: The Mathworks Inc.
Haykin, Simon. 1999. Neural Networks: A
Comprehensive Foundation Second Edition.
Ontario: Pearson Prentice Hall
Li, X., Miskimins, J.L., Hoffman, B.T. 2014. A
Combined Bottom-hole Pressure Calculation
Procedure Using Multiphase Correlations and
Artificial Neural Network Models. Proceedings of
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition
held in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 27 – 29
October 2014.
Osman, E.A., Ayoub, M.A.. 2005. Artificial Neural
Network Model for Predicting Bottomhole Flowing
Pressure in Vertical Multiphase Flow. Proceedings
of 14th SPE Middle East Oil & Gas Show and
Conference held in Bahrain International Exhibition
Centre, Bahrain, 12 – 15 March 2005.
 TABLE 1

DATA DISTRIBUTION

Min P50 Max

Date 26-Dec-03 24-Dec-14

WHFP (psig) 17.4 318 3171.15

WHFT (degC) 89.6 131 172.9
Qgas (MMSCFD) 0.2 2.03 10.5
Qcnd (BCPD) 0 44 444
Qwtr (BWPD) 0 96 883
CGR (STB/MMSCF) 0 23 1064
WGR (STB/MMSCF) 0 90 1927
SG Gas 0.7 0.75 0.81
SG Condensate 0.69 0.80 0.8645
Tubing ID (in) 2.992 3.958
Top Res(MD) 772 3579 5134
Top Res (TVD) 753 3109 4242
BHP (psig) 250 1147 4152

TABLE 2

COMPARISON BETWEEN ANN AND THE PRESENTED CORRELATIONS

Average Absolute Percent Error (%)

Method
Global Qg ≤ 1 1 <Qg ≥ 2 2 <Qg ≥ 3 3 <Qg ≥ 4 Qg> 4

ANN 4.32 4.79 4.33 4.75 4.04 3.66

Duns and Ros Mod 21 37 21 16 16 10

Gray 22 36 23 16 17 8

PETEX 22 36 24 18 18 8

OLGA2P 20 34 18 15 13 8

OLGA3P 21 35 18 15 13 8

WellSim 18 29 14 16 12 9
 Figure 1 - Mahakam Block - Tunu Map

Tunu Active Wells Tunu Active Well Status

>4 MMSCFD
10%

Unloaded
36%
2-4
MMSCFD <1 MMSCFD
26% 47%

Loaded
64%

1-2
MMSCFD
17%

Figure 2 - Tunu wells status

Figure 3 - Flow chart of the fixed-MD method BHP calculation using ANN

Figure 4 - The developed Neural Network model

 Figure 5 - Training results

Figure 6 - Artificial Neural Network Validation Results

Figure 7 - Validation Results

 Figure 8 - Gas rate vs Error (available correlation)

Figure 9 - Validation Results – Gas Rate vs Error of ANN

Figure 10 - Comparison between ANN results and 6 other correlations

Figure 11 - BHP plot example between Actual Data, ANN and VLP correlations