SPE-208657-MS

Successful Application of Machine Learning to Improve Dynamic Modeling

and History Matching for Complex Gas-Condensate Reservoirs in Hai Thach
Field, Nam Con Son Basin, Offshore Vietnam

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEIOGS/proceedings-pdf/19IOGC/2-19IOGC/D021S007R001/2506334/spe-208657-ms.pdf by Son Hoang on 19 October 2021

Son K. Hoang, Tung V. Tran, Tan N. Nguyen, Tu A. Truong, Duy H. Pham, Trung N. Tran, Vinh X. Trinh, and Anh T.
Ngo, BIENDONG POC

Copyright 2021, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Symposium: Artificial Intelligence - Towards a Resilient and Efficient Energy Industry held virtually on 18 - 19
Oct 2021.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
This study aims to apply machine learning (ML) to make history matching (HM) process easier, faster, more
accurate, and more reliable by determining whether Local Grid Refinement (LGR) with transmissibility
multiplier is needed to history match gas-condensate wells producing from geologically complex reservoirs
and determining how LGR should be set up to successfully history match those production wells.
The main challenges for HM gas-condensate production from Hai Thach wells are large effect of
condensate banking (condensate blockage), flow baffles by the sub-seismic fault network, complex reservoir
distribution and connectivity, highly uncertain HIIP, and lack of PVT information for most reservoirs. In
this study, ML was applied to analyze production data using synthetic samples generated by a very large
number of compositional sector models so that the need for LGR could be identified before the HM process
and the required LGR setup could also be determined. The proposed method helped provide better models
in a much shorter time, and improved the efficiency and reliability of the dynamic modeling process.
500+ synthetic samples were generated using compositional sector models and divided into training
and test sets. Supervised classification algorithms including logistic regression, Gaussian, Bernoulli, and
multinomial Naïve Bayes, linear discriminant analysis, support vector machine, K-nearest neighbors, and
Decision Tree as well as ANN were applied to the data sets to determine the need for using LGR in HM. The
best algorithm was found to be the Decision Tree classifier, with 100% and 99% accuracy on the training
and the test sets, respectively. The size of the LGR area could also be determined reasonably well at 89% and
87% accuracy on the training and the test sets, respectively. The range of the transmissibility multiplier could
also be determined reasonably well at 97% and 91% accuracy on the training and the test sets, respectively.
Moreover, the ML model was validated using actual production and HM data.
A new method of applying ML in dynamic modeling and HM of challenging gas-condensate wells in
geologically complex reservoirs has been successfully applied to the high-pressure high-temperature Hai
Thach field offshore Vietnam. The proposed method helped reduce many trial and error simulation runs and
provide better and more reliable dynamic models.
2 SPE-208657-MS

Introduction
Within the oil and gas industry, ML has been applied to a wide range of problems such as predicting and
detecting equipment malfunctions (Sneed 2017, Bangert 2019), production forecasting (Cao et al. 2016;
Mukherjee et al. 2019), automatic depth matching (Zimmermann et al. 2018), shear wave velocity prediction
(Akhundi et al. 2014; Anemangely et al. 2017; Bukar et al. 2019), facies classification (Bestagini et al.
2017, Miller et al. 2019, Tran et al. 2020), well log correlation (Brazell et al. 2019, Maniar et al. 2018), fault
detection (Maniar et al. 2018), seismic facies classification (Chopra and Marfurt 2018), geological feature
prediction (Jobe et al. 2018), sanding prediction (Kanj and Abousleiman 1999), wellbore stability analysis

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEIOGS/proceedings-pdf/19IOGC/2-19IOGC/D021S007R001/2506334/spe-208657-ms.pdf by Son Hoang on 19 October 2021

(Phan et al. 2020), bubble point pressure prediction (Alakbari et al. 2016), and HM (Honorio et al. 2015,
Illarionov et al. 2020).
This particular study was driven by the great challenges of history matching well HT-C, a producer
in the largest gas-condensate reservoir in Hai Thach field with many conflicting behaviors. For example,
the average permeability estimated from core-calibrated logs for this well was 22 mD, two orders higher
than the average reservoir permeability from pressure transient analysis of 0.24 mD (Pham et al. 2020).
During production, this well showed extremely high drawdown on the order of 4000-5000 psi despite low
gas rate of 2-3 MMscf/D, consistent with the low permeability from pressure transient analysis. During
shut-ins, pressure buildup was slow; even long buildups of several months was not sufficient to stabilize
either downhole gauge pressure or wellhead pressure, again consistent with the low permeability from
pressure transient analysis. However, the initial part of the buildup curve was very fast, indicative of good
reservoir permeability near wellbore, consistent with petrophysical analysis results. Many conventional HM
sensitivity runs were conducted for this well, including using LGR and GPP (similar to Singh and Whitson
2010, Tran et al. 2015) but failed to reproduce all of the conflicting behaviors. Comprehensive review of
the reservoir then revealed that it was severely faulted with a network of sub-seismic faults and these faults
could act as flow baffles within the reservoir. Therefore, LGR consistent with average sub-seismic fault
spacing and transmissibility multiplier were applied around well HT-C to the previously best dynamic model
without LGR. A successful history match for the whole production history including all drawdown and
buildup periods was finally achieved. Since it was not clear whether other producers in the same field might
suffer from the same problem, it would be greatly beneficial to determine before the HM process if LGR
with transmissibility multiplier would be required. It would be even more beneficial if the LGR setup could
be determined beforehand as well. ML seemed to be a promising approach to achieve those objectives. This
study was part of the AI initiative at BIENDONG POC (Tran et al. 2020, Trieu et al. 2021).

Simulation Data Generation

In this study, rectangular, homogeneous, compositional sector models were constructed using the
commercial Eclipse 300 simulator to generate synthetic samples. Typical cell size, rock properties, and
fluid PVT properties of Hai Thach field were used in the sector models. For each sector model geometry,
the following models were run: 1) no LGR and 2) LGR with different sizes of LGR area and different
transmissibility multipliers. The producer was at the center of the LGR area. Each cell in the LGR area was
refined to 3×3, as shown in Fig. 1, based on results from previous studies on capturing condensate banking
effects in dynamic models.
SPE-208657-MS 3

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEIOGS/proceedings-pdf/19IOGC/2-19IOGC/D021S007R001/2506334/spe-208657-ms.pdf by Son Hoang on 19 October 2021

Figure 1—Example of LGR 3×3 setup around the production well.

The well was set to produce at a constant gas rate typical of actual field production for a sufficiently
long period to allow it to reach stable flow. It was then shut in to build up pressure. From the buildup
pressure curve, 1000 pressure points with equal time interval were extracted and normalized for both time
and pressure. In this study, more than 500 synthetic samples were generated.

Machine Learning Approach

To find the most accurate model, many supervised classification algorithms were considered in this study,
including logistic regression, Gaussian Naïve Bayes, Bernoulli Naïve Bayes, multinomial Naïve Bayes,
linear discriminant analysis, support vector machine, K-nearest neighbors, and Decision Tree. For these
algorithms, the input dataset was separated into two datasets, one for training and the other for testing. The
relative size of training and testing datasets were varied and the results were found to be relatively stable
in this study.
For the need to use LGR, the classification outputs were 0 if LGR would not be required and 1 if LGR
would be required. For the LGR setup, the following approach was used for prediction:
– Grid size ≤ 3×3 is represented by 0 (small LGR area) and > 3×3 by 1 (large LGR area);
– Transmissibility multiplier > 0.02 is represented by 0 (less flow hindrance) and ≤ 0.02 by 1 (more
flow hindrance).
In addition, an ANN model with three layers was tried in this study. The first two layers included 32
neurons and ‘Relu’ was used as activation function. The last layer had one neuron with a sigmoid function.
For ANN, the dataset was separated into three groups: training data (60-80%), validation data (10-20%),
and testing data (10-20%).

Machine Learning Results on Simulation Data

For the prediction on the need to use LGR, true negative means that the dynamic model is predicted not
to need LGR to obtain a good history match and indeed it does not need LGR to produce a good history
match. False positive means that the dynamic model is predicted to need LGR to obtain good HM but it
actually does not need LGR. False negative means that the dynamic model is predicted not to need LGR
but it actually does need LGR to obtain a good history match. Finally, true positive means that the dynamic
4 SPE-208657-MS

model is predicted to need LGR and it does need LGR. Between the two types of errors (false positive and
false negative), false negative is worse in this study because it will totally mislead the modeling efforts
and produce very poor HM results. Therefore, close attention will be paid to false negatives during the
evaluation of each ML model.
In addition, the accuracy score was calculated as follows:

In this study, the three algorithms with the highest accuracy scores in decreasing order were Decision
Tree, K-nearest neighbors, and Random Forest, as shown in Table 1.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEIOGS/proceedings-pdf/19IOGC/2-19IOGC/D021S007R001/2506334/spe-208657-ms.pdf by Son Hoang on 19 October 2021

Table 1—Accuracy results for the need of LGR.

Method Data set Accuracy score

Logistic Regression Training 0.95

Classifier Test set 0.96

Training 1.00
Decision Tree Classifier
Test set 0.99

Training 0.81
Bernoulli Classifier
Test set 0.85

Training 0.86
Multinomial Classifier
Test set 0.86

Training 0.99
K-Nearest Neighbors
Test set 0.99

Linear Discriminant Training 0.99

Analysis Test set 0.84

Training 0.79
Gaussian Naïve Bayes
Test set 0.78

Training 0.94
Support Vector Machine
Test set 0.96

Training 0.97
Random Forest
Test set 0.97

The confusion matrix report system was also used in this study to evaluate the accuracy of each model.
The confusion matrix is as follows:

The confusion matrices for all ML models for 153 datasets in the test set are summarized in Table 2. It
was observed that the Decision Tree classifier had an outstanding performance with only 1 false positive
and no false negatives. KNN was the second best with no false positives but two false negatives. Random
Forest came in third with only 1 false positive but three false negatives. Other methods did not perform as
well as the aforementioned top three methods. Therefore, only Decision Tree, KNN, and Random Forest
algorithms were selected for further study.
SPE-208657-MS 5

Table 2—Confusion matrices for the need of LGR.

Method Confusion matrix for test set

Logistic Regression Classifier

Decision Tree Classifier

Bernoulli Classifier

Multinomial Classifier

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEIOGS/proceedings-pdf/19IOGC/2-19IOGC/D021S007R001/2506334/spe-208657-ms.pdf by Son Hoang on 19 October 2021

K-Nearest Neighbors

Linear Discriminant Analysis

Gaussian Naïve Bayes

Support Vector Machine

Random Forest

For the ANN model, 1000 runs were conducted. The accuracy was relatively high, as shown in Fig. 2.
There was also a good fit with a minimal gap between the two final loss values, as shown in Fig. 3. However,
the results were not as good as those using Decision Tree, KNN, and Random Forest methods. Therefore,
ANN was not pursued further in this study.

Figure 2—ANN model accuracy.

6 SPE-208657-MS

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEIOGS/proceedings-pdf/19IOGC/2-19IOGC/D021S007R001/2506334/spe-208657-ms.pdf by Son Hoang on 19 October 2021

Figure 3—ANN model loss.

For the size of the LGR area, the results are summarized in Table 3. The Decision Tree classifier was
again the best ML method, with 89% accuracy on the training set and 87% accuracy on the test set. Neither
KNN nor Random Forest method could perform as well as Decision Tree for either data set. The confusion
matrices, as summarized in Table 4, also showed that the Decision Tree classifier was the best algorithm
among the three methods.

Table 3—Accuracy results for size of the LGR area.

Method Data set Accuracy score

Training 0.89
Decision Tree Classifier
Test set 0.87

Training 0.83
K-Nearest Neighbors
Test set 0.79

Training 0.82
Random Forest
Test set 0.81

Table 4—Confusion matrices for size of the LGR area.

Method Confusion matrix

Decision Tree Classifier

K-Nearest Neighbors

Random Forest
SPE-208657-MS 7

For the range of transmissibility multiplier, the results are summarized in Table 5. The Decision Tree
classifier was again the best ML method, with 97% accuracy on the training set and 91% accuracy on the
test set. Neither KNN nor Random Forest method could be as good as Decision Tree for either data set. The
confusion matrices, as summarized in Table 6, also showed that the Decision Tree classifier was the best
algorithm among the three methods.

Table 5—Accuracy results for the transmissibility multiplier.

Method Data set Accuracy score

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEIOGS/proceedings-pdf/19IOGC/2-19IOGC/D021S007R001/2506334/spe-208657-ms.pdf by Son Hoang on 19 October 2021

Training 0.97
Decision Tree Classifier
Test set 0.91

Training 0.93
K-Nearest Neighbors
Test set 0.89

Training 0.91
Random Forest
Test set 0.89

Table 6—Confusion matrices for the transmissibility multiplier.

Method Confusion matrix

Decision Tree Classifier

K-Nearest Neighbors

Random Forest

Machine Learning Model Validation

The ML model was validated using actual HM results of well HT-C. Prior to this study, many HM sensitivity
runs were conducted for this well, but no simulation model was able to reproduce all of the conflicting
production behaviors. Fig. 4 shows the results of an example case using tubing head pressure control. Gas
production rate was overestimated while bottomhole pressure was underestimated during buidup periods.
8 SPE-208657-MS

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEIOGS/proceedings-pdf/19IOGC/2-19IOGC/D021S007R001/2506334/spe-208657-ms.pdf by Son Hoang on 19 October 2021

Figure 4—Typical poor history matching results of well HT-C using conventional models.

Comprehensive and in-depth review of the reservoir revealed that it was severely faulted with a network
of sub-seismic faults. Furthermore, there was core-based evidence that these faults could be filled and
have low permeability, therefore acting as flow baffles within the reservoir. As a consequence, LGR with
transmissibility multiplier was applied around well HT-C to the previously best dynamic model without
LGR. Finally, well HT-C was successfully history matched for the whole history, including all drawdown
and buildup periods, as shown in Fig. 5.
SPE-208657-MS 9

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEIOGS/proceedings-pdf/19IOGC/2-19IOGC/D021S007R001/2506334/spe-208657-ms.pdf by Son Hoang on 19 October 2021

Figure 5—Good history matching results of well HT-C with LGR and transmissibility multiplier.

ML prediction using HT-C buildup data showed that LGR would be needed to history match this well,
as shown in Table 7, consistent with actual dynamic modeling results.
10 SPE-208657-MS

Table 7—HT-C prediction results for the need to use LGR in history matching.

K-Nearest
Buildup No. Decision Tree Random Forest
Neighbors

1 1
2 1
3 1
4 1
5 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEIOGS/proceedings-pdf/19IOGC/2-19IOGC/D021S007R001/2506334/spe-208657-ms.pdf by Son Hoang on 19 October 2021

6 1 1 1

Moreover, prediction using HT-C buildup data also showed that an area larger than 3×3 cells would
need LGR and the transmissibility multiplier of less than or equal to 0.02 would be needed. Those results
were consistent with the actual LGR setup used to successfully history match HT-C (LGR of 9×9 cells
with transmissibility multiplier of 0.02). In summary, the ML model was successfully validated using actual
production data as well as actual dynamic modeling results of well HT-C.

Application
Well HT-B was selected for the application in this case study. For each buildup, pressure data was loaded
with a minimum time step of 30 minutes to obtain one thousand data points. The top three algorithms
(Decision Tree, K-nearest neighbors, and Random Forest) all predicted that LGR would be required to
achieve good HM for well HT-B, as shown in Table 8.

Table 8—HT-B prediction results for the need to use LGR in history matching.

K-Nearest
Buildup No. Decision Tree Random Forest
Neighbors

1 1 1 1
2 1 1 1
3 1 1 1

Regarding the LGR setup, the ML models predicted that an area larger than 3×3 cells would need LGR
and a transmissibility multiplier less than or equal to 0.02 would be required to history match HT-B.
Based on the ML prediction results, LGR with transmissibility multiplier was applied to HT-B dynamic
model. Well HT-B had only one year of downhole gauge data, therefore it was history matched using tubing
head pressure control. HM for HT-B was previously done without LGR and a good match could not be
obtained, as shown in Fig. 6. Gas production rate was overestimated while BHP was underestimated. Based
on the ML prediction, LGR was then applied around HT-B to the previously best model without LGR. With
a 10×11 LGR area and transmissibility multiplier of 0.005, a good history match was obtained, as shown
in Fig. 7.
 Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEIOGS/proceedings-pdf/19IOGC/2-19IOGC/D021S007R001/2506334/spe-208657-ms.pdf by Son Hoang on 19 October 2021
11

Figure 6—Previous poor history matching results of HT-B without LGR.

SPE-208657-MS
 Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEIOGS/proceedings-pdf/19IOGC/2-19IOGC/D021S007R001/2506334/spe-208657-ms.pdf by Son Hoang on 19 October 2021
SPE-208657-MS

Figure 7—Good history match of HT-B model with LGR and transmissibility multiplier.
12
SPE-208657-MS 13

Conclusions
This paper reports a successful case study of applying ML to improve the HM process for gas-condensate
wells producing from geologically complex reservoirs, making it easier, less time-consuming, and more
reliable, by determining with almost perfect accuracy whether LGR with transmissibility multiplier would
be required. The required LGR area and range of the required transmissibility multiplier could also be
determined with high accuracy before the history matching process begins. As a result, the ML prediction
results have significantly reduced the number of trial-and-error simulation runs, helped provide better
models in a much shorter time, and greatly improved the efficiency and reliability of the dynamic modeling

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEIOGS/proceedings-pdf/19IOGC/2-19IOGC/D021S007R001/2506334/spe-208657-ms.pdf by Son Hoang on 19 October 2021

process.

References
Akhundi, H., Ghafoori, M., and Lashkaripour, G.R. 2014. Prediction of Shear Wave Velocity Using Artificial Neural
Network Technique, Multiple Regression and Petrophysical Data: A Case Study in Asmari Reservoir (SW Iran). Open
Journal of Geology 4:303–313. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojg.2014.47023.
Alakbari, F.S., Elkatatny, S., and Baarimah, S.O. 2016. Prediction of Bubble Point Pressure Using Artificial Intelligence AI
Techniques. Paper SPE 184208 presented at the SPE Middle East Artificial Lift Conference and Exhibition, Manama,
Kingdom of Bahrain, 30 November-1 December. https://doi.org/10.2118/184208-MS.
Anemangely, M., Ramezanzadeh, A., and Tokhmechi, B. 2017. Shear Wave Travel Time Estimation from Petrophysical
Logs Using ANFIS-PSO Algorithm: A Case Study from Ab-Teymour Oilfield. Journal of Natural Gas Science and
Engineering 38:373–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2017.01.003.
Bangert, P. 2019. Predicting and Detecting Equipment Malfunctions Using Machine Learning. Paper SPE 195149
presented at the SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference, Manama, Bahrain, 18-21 March. https://
doi.org/10.2118/195149-MS.
Bestagini, P., Lipari, V., and Tubaro, S. 2017. A Machine Learning Approach to Facies Classification Using Well Logs.
SEG International Exposition and 87th Annual Meeting, Houston, TX, USA, 24-29 September. https://doi.org/10.1190/
segam2017-17729805.1.
Brazell, S., Bayeh, A., Ashby, M., Burton, D. 2019. A Machine-Learning-Based Approach to Assistive Well-Log
Correlation. Petrophysics 60(4):469–479. https://doi.org/10.30632/PJV60N4-2019a1.
Bukar, I., Adamu, M.B., and Hassan, U. 2019. A Machine Learning Approach to Shear Sonic Log Prediction. Paper SPE
198764 presented at the Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition, Lagos, Nigeria, 5-7 August. https://
doi.org/10.2118/198764-MS.
Cao, Q., Banerjee, R., Gupta, S., Li, J., Zhou, W., and Jeyachandra, B. 2016. Data Driven Production Forecasting Using
Machine Learning. Paper SPE 180984 presented at the SPE Argentina Exploration and Production of Unconventional
Resources Symposium, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1-3 June. https://doi.org/10.2118/180984-MS.
Chopra, S. and Marfurt, K.J. 2018. Seismic Facies Characterization Using Some Unsupervised Machine Learning
Methods. Proc., SEG International Exposition and 88th Annual Meeting, 15 October, 2056–2060. https://
doi.org/10.1190/segam2018-2997356.1.
Honorio, J., Chen, C., Gao, G., Du, K., and Jaakkola, T. 2015. Integration of PCA with a Novel Machine Learning
Method for Reparameterization and Assisted History Matching Geologically Complex Reservoirs. Paper SPE 175038
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, USA, 28-30 September. https://
doi.org/10.2118/175038-MS.
Illarionov, E., Temirchev, P., Voloskov, D., Gubanova, A., Koroteev, D., Simonov, M., Akhametov, A., and Margarit, A.
2020. 3D Reservoir Model History Matching Based on Machine Learning Technology. Paper SPE 201924 presented at
the SPE Russian Petroleum Technology Conference, Moscow, Russia, 12-14 October. https://doi.org/10.2118/201924-
MS.
Jobe, T.D., Vital-Brazil, E., and Khait, M. 2018. Geological Feature Prediction Using Image-Based Machine Learning.
Petrophysics 59(6):750–760. https://doi.org/10.30632/PJV59N6-2018a1.
Kanj, M.Y. and Abousleiman, Y. 1999. Realistic Sanding Predictions: A Neural Approach. Paper SPE 56631 presented at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX, USA, 3-6 October. https://doi.org/10.2118/56631-
MS.
Maniar, H., Ryali, S., Kulkarni, M.S., and Abubakar, A. 2018. Machine Learning Methods in Geoscience.
Proc., SEG International Exposition and 88th Annual Meeting, 15 October, 4638–4642. https://doi.org/10.1190/
segam2018-2997218.1.
14 SPE-208657-MS

Miller, R.S., Rhodes, S., Khosla, D., and Nino, F. 2019. Application of Artificial Intelligence for Depositional Facies
Recognition – Permian Basin. Paper URTEC-2019-193-MS presented at the Unconventional Resources Technology
Conference, Denver, Colorado, USA, 22-24 July. https://doi.org/10.15530/urtec-2019-193.
Mukherjee, T., Burgett, T., Ghanchi, T., Donegan, C., and Ward, T. 2019. Predicting Gas Production Using Machine
Learning: A Case Study. SEG International Exposition and 89th Annual Meeting, San Antonio, TX, USA, 15-20
September. https://doi.org/10.1190/segam2019-3215692.1.
Pham, D.H., Hoang, S.K., Trinh, V.X., and Tran, T.V. 2020. Condensate Banking Characterization and Quantification of
Improvement from Different Mitigations Using Pressure Transient Analysis: A Case Study in Hai Thach Field Offshore
Vietnam. Paper OTC 30142 presented at the Offshore Technology Conference Asia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2-6
November. https://doi.org/10.4043/30142-MS.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEIOGS/proceedings-pdf/19IOGC/2-19IOGC/D021S007R001/2506334/spe-208657-ms.pdf by Son Hoang on 19 October 2021

Phan, D.T., Liu, C., AlTammar, M.J., Han, Y., and Abousleiman, Y. 2020. Application of Artificial Intelligence to Predict
Time-Dependent Safe Mud Weight Windows for Inclined Wellbores. Paper IPTC 19900 presented at the International
Petroleum Technology Conference, Dharan, Saudi Arabia, 13-15 January. https://doi.org/10.2523/IPTC-19900-MS.
Singh, K. and Whitson, C.H. 2010. Gas-Condensate Pseudopressure in Layered Reservoirs. SPE Reservoir Evaluation &
Engineering 13(02):203–213. https://doi.org/10.2118/117930-PA.
Sneed, J. 2017. Predicting ESP Lifespan with Machine Learning. Paper URTeC 2669988 presented at the Unconventional
Resources Technology Conference, Austin, Texas, USA, 24-26 July. https://doi.org/10.15530/URTEC-2017-2669988.
Tran, T.V., Ngo, A.T., Hoang, H.M., and Tran, N.H. 2015. Production Performance of Gas Condensate Reservoirs:
Compositional Numerical Model – A Case Study of Hai Thach – Moc Tinh Fields. Paper SPE 177445 presented
at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 9-12 November. https://
doi.org/10.2118/177445-MS.
Tran, T.V., Ngo, H.H., Hoang, S.K., Tran, H.N.T., and Lambiase, J.J. 2020. Depositional Facies Prediction Using Artificial
Intelligence to Improve Reservoir Characterization in a Mature Field of Nam Con Son Basin, Offshore Vietnam. Paper
OTC 30086 presented at the Offshore Technology Conference Asia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2-6 November. https://
doi.org/10.4043/30086-MS.
Tran, T.V., Tran, T.N., Ngo, H.H., and Nguyen, T.T. 2020. Digital Transformation in Oil and Gas Companies – A Case
Study of Bien Dong POC. Petrovietnam Journal 10/2020:68–81. https://doi.org/10.47800/PVJ.2020.10-07.
Trieu, T.H. et al. 2021. Nghiên cứu xây dựng bộ công cụ trí tuệ nhân tạo hỗ trợ đánh giá phân tích, liên kết tài liệu địa
chất, địa vật lý giếng khoan và số liệu khai thác để nâng cao hiệu quả quản lý, khai thác mỏ khí condensate Hải Thạch
– Mộc Tinh Lô 05-2; 05-3, thuộc Biển Đông Việt Nam. Research project for Vietnam Ministry of Industry and Trade.
Zimmerman, T., Liang, L., and Zeroug, S. 2018. Machine-Learning-Based Automatic Well-Log Depth Matching.
Petrophysics 59(6):863–872. https://doi.org/10.30632/PJV59N6-2018a10.