SPE 68235
Quality Assurance Tool for PVT Simulator Predictions
Varotsis N., SPE, Consultant-Oilphase Division of Schlumberger, Gaganis V., Consultant, Nighswander J., SPE, Oilphase
Division of Schlumberger
Copyright 2001, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2001 SPE Middle East Oil Show held in
Bahrain, 17–20 March 2001.
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, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
The currently available PVT simulators predict the physical
properties of reservoir fluids with varying degrees of accuracy
depending on the type of the model utilized, the nature of the
fluid and the prevailing conditions. Nevertheless, they all
exhibit the significant drawback of lacking the ability to
estimate the quality of their answers.
Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs), trained by large PVT
databases, are increasingly utilized to provide accurate
predictions of physical properties mainly due to their ability to
learn from experience. The utilization of such models offers
the unique capability of estimating the quality of their
predictions as their degree of competence can be evaluated for
each unknown test case. The accuracy of the ANN based PVT
simulators depends heavily on the density of the database
compositional mapping around the coordinates of the
unknown reservoir fluid. Unknown test cases found outside
the available training space may lead to poor predictions.
In this work, a quality assurance tool is presented that is
integrated to the PVT Expert, which is an ANN based PVT
properties prediction model. In the case of an unknown fluid
this tool qualifies the predictions of the PVT simulator based
on the evaluation of the affinity of the test case with the
training data sets contained in the utilised database.
Subsequently, the competence with which the ANN model has
learned the general trend in the area around any new test case
is assessed numerically through the development of an ANN
sextuple model per property. Finally, the utilization of the
average predicted value eliminates the risk of considerable
deviations.

Trademark of Schlumberger
This innovative approach was successfully tested against a
large set of studies "unseen" by the ANN model. The ability of
providing confidence for the accuracy of the PVT predictions
and of assessing their quality, significantly upgrades the
applicability of the PVT simulator as a valuable reservoir
management tool.
Introduction
An ANN can be defined as a multi-dimensional function that
includes a large number of parameters which relate input and
output data1. Advantages such as its ability to learn the
behavior of a database population by self-tuning its
parameters, the performance of direct and rapid calculations,
as well as its capability of becoming increasingly “expert” by
retraining, render this tool suitable for applications such as the
prediction of PVT properties.
The application of ANN techniques is rapidly gaining
popularity in petroleum engineering problems such as
reservoir characterization2,3, well completion and cementing4,
well test interpretation5, well logging6, reservoir simulation7,
and prediction of equilibrium k-values8. Recently, ANNs were
employed for the prediction of the bubble point pressure and
formation oil volume factor of crude oils given the reservoir
temperature, oil API gravity, GOR and gas specific gravity9.
The PVT prediction model that was presented in our
previous work10 is an ANN based simulator which has been
developed using a database containing PVT data of 650
reservoir fluids from around the world measured in the
laboratory. This data covers the complete range of fluid types
and compositions as well as the reservoir operating conditions
with approximately 400 of the data sets belonging to reservoir
oils and 250 data sets refering to gas condensate fluids.
The type of the PVT properties considered and the range
covered in this data set is summarized in Table 1. Although
each PVT property in this data set varies over a very wide
range, the data population is not uniformly distributed and, as
expected, is biased towards low volatility oils and gas
condensates of low liquid yield. To account for this data bias
and to achieve a uniform performance of the ANN models,
appropriate non-linear transformations were selected and
utilized.
Key measurements which could be rapidly performed on
the produced fluids either onsite or in the PVT lab were
2 N.VAROTSIS, V. GAGANIS, J.NIGHSWANDER
selected as input data for the developed ANNs . For reservoir
oil fluids, the input data set consists of reservoir fluid
composition, saturation pressure, reservoir temperature, fluid
density at the bubble point, viscosity and density of stock tank
oil and flash gas density. The input for gas condensates
consists of reservoir fluid composition, dew point, reservoir
temperature, z factor at the dew point, field GOR and tank
liquid density.
The model provides the full set of properties obtained from
a full PVT study including the constant mass study, the
differential vaporization or the depletion study, the separation
test and the viscosity study. Curves such as the isothermal
compressibility, the oil volume factor, the gas-to-oil ratio, the
viscosity, the oil phase density, the gas phase z factor, the
cumulative produced fluid and the retrograde liquid deposit
are predicted in the full pressure range.
To allow the ANNs predict for each fluid full pressure
range PVT properties with sufficient accuracy, the data curves
were split into mono and di-phasic regions. The remaining
monotonic curves were further normalized in the unitary
square. This corresponding states-like approach attributes
similar shapes to the transformed physical property curves of
reservoir fluids exhibiting similar thermodynamic behavior
even if the actual values of the original curves differ. For
example, by normalizing the diphasic Bo curve in a unitary
square, the entire set of Bo curves is included between the
curve shape types of the very low and very high volatility oils
(Fig. 1). The transformed curves obtained are consequently
discretized to obtain a set of numbers which can be
reproduced by an ANN. The curve endpoints are predicted by
single-output ANNs. The transformed curves proved to be
much easier for the ANNs to learn than the original ones. It is
noted that special inversible non-linear transformations are
required to turn curves such as the liberated gas specific
gravity into monotonic ones.
For some of the single valued properties it was found that
they could be associated with a known measurement. For
example, the reservoir oil density at atmospheric pressure is
related to the measured density at the bubble point. Instead of
aiming directly at the original property, the difference (or the
ratio) of its value with respect to a related property value is
predicted. Using this technique, even large deviations of the
difference/ratio predictions result in only small errors of the
original property.
The available PVT database was randomly split into
training (80%), testing (10%) and validation (10%) subsets.
The last two data subsets were used for the evaluation of the
ANN performance. The objective of the training of the ANN
models was to learn the underlying thermodynamic behavior
of the training dataset rather than individual data points
(overtraining)11.
For the ANN models training, an extended version of the
classic back-propagation algorithm with momentum was
used12. More specifically, the sigmoid slopes were allowed to
be tuned during the training phase, thus increasing the ANN
flexibility. The tuning is performed using an update law which
tends to minimize the approximation error.
SPE 68235
Two hidden layers employing different number of neurons
in each layer were utilized and the networks were repeatedly
trained until the optimum structure was obtained. Low
approximation errors on both the training and the prediction
sets indicates satisfactory training.
The performance obtained from the trained ANNs was
subsequently double-checked against the validation dataset
which consisted of studies “unseen” by the model. Recently,
an additional set of 161 oil PVT studies was used to test the
performance of the models. The average, standard deviation
and the maximum error values for oils, for both the training
and validation sets are listed in Table 2. Generally it can be
seen that the average relative error is less than 5%, while the
standard deviation is of the same order indicating that the
prediction errors are rather evenly spread along the range
spanned by the PVT properties.
Table 3, presents the performance of the ANN models for
gas condensate properties. Their accuracy indicates that the
performance of the ANN models for these fluids is of the same
order of magnitude as for the oils with all of the relative error
averages ranging between 0.5-2.5%.
Table 4 presents the performance of the developed ANN
models compared to that of the Standing13, Al-Mahroun14 and
Vazquez & Beggs15 correlations for the prediction of the oil
formation volume factor at bubble point. The comparison test
is performed on 161 oil PVT studies. Clearly, the average
relative error of the ANN models is almost half that obtained
by the correlations.
Comparisons of typical predictions of the oil volume factor
and the depletion retrograde liquid condensation curves along
the pressure of unknown fluids (validation set) to the lab
reported curves are illustrated in Figures 2 and 3.
The Quality Assurance Tool
A very important inherent drawback of every single PVT
prediction model available so far (correlation, Equation-of-
State based simulator, etc.) is that no method can be available
with which to estimate the quality of its predictions when
applied to an unknown fluid. On the contrary, for an artificial
neural networks based simulator, direct links can be
established between the features of the unknown test case and
the data population used for the training on the one hand and
the numerical stability of the model on the other.
Simple prediction quality estimation algorithms have been
proposed by Courieou16 and Liu17. The former, assumed that
the predictions for an unknown case lying in the convex hull
defined by the multidimensional training datapoints will
always be safe. However, when this method is applied to a
training space disposing regions of low datapoints density it
can fail to correctly qualify the predictions.
The objective of this study was to develop a Quality
Assurance Tool following a twinfold approach. Firstly, to
develop a similarity test for estimating the affinity of any new
reservoir fluid test case with the training database cases. The
accuracy of the prediction of the thermodynamic behavior of
any unknown fluid using the ANN approach depends on its
similarity with the available training fluid datapoints.
SPE 68235 QUALITY ASSURANCE TOOL FOR PVT SIMULATOR PREDICTIONS
Secondly, to develop a stability test for assessing the degree of
competence with which each ANN learned during its training
the underlying trend of the required PVT properties in the
neighborhood of the unknown test case.
Similarity Test
This test is based on the principle that the existence of
neighboring training studies similar enough, from the point of
view of the input, to the new test case can ensure that the
ANN models will interpolate safely among “similar” training
data sets and hence their predictions can be trusted as accurate.
The principle is illustrated in a simplistic 2-D plot in
Figure 4, where a white inner circle having the new test fluid
in its center defines the “similarity region”, in the sense that if
training data sets are positioned inside this circle, confidence
could be provided for the quality of the test case ANN
predictions. If training data sets are only positioned in the
outer grey circle, limited “similar” information was available
for the ANN to acquire during its training. Finally, if training
data sets are found only in the area outside the white and grey
circles, it is assumed that insufficient knowledge was available
locally for the training of the ANN.
To evaluate the positioning of each one of the training
cases in the multi-dimensional space with respect to the new
test case, the following should be quantified for each pair of
studies:
• the similarity of the fluids compositions
• the differences of their additional inputs (reservoir
temperature, saturation pressure etc.) weighted by factors
related to the sensitivity of the predicted property with
respect to each input
• the prediction error with which the ANN model has
learned during the training procedure the properties of
any neighboring cases as this error could affect the
predictions for the new test case.
To mathematically formulate the principle described
above, a similarity index s is defined such that the larger the
value of the index, the closer the training dataset study is
considered to be to the new test case. This single similarity
index is constructed from the following four sub-indices :
The composition sub-index ix. It counts for the
dissimilarity between the compared studies with respect to
their reservoir fluid compositions. It is defined as the standard
deviation of the differences of the compositional inputs of the
two studies.
{ }
i x = std ∆x j , j = Ν 2 , ... , C n + .........................................(1)
For similar compositions displaying small differences, this
sub-index exhibits low values. On the other hand, it displays
large values in such cases when a black oil is compared to a
volatile one. It is noted that the average of the differences of
the compositional inputs equals zero, since both compositions
sum to 100%.
The conditions sub-index ic. It counts for the dissimilarity
between two studies with respect to their input, other than
fluid composition. This index is defined as the difference of
3
the two studies inputs weighted by the sensitivities of the
ANN output y around the new case input.
∂y new
i c = ∑ ∆j
j ∂j x new .........................(2)
j = p b , Tres , MWRF , ρ b , ρ STO , MWFG , MWSTO
The required partial derivatives of the trained ANN model
in Eq. 2 for the evaluation of the sensitivities-weighted
distance are based on the formulation proposed by Choi and
Choi18 and are evaluated at the new case input. Let us consider
as an example that the conditions sub-index is evaluated firstly
for two volatile fluids exhibiting molecular weights of 35 and
40 gr/mole respectively and secondly for two black oils of
molecular weights of 250 and 255 gr/mole respectively.
Although the molecular weight difference is the same in both
cases, in the former this difference is evidently multiplied by a
larger sensitivity leading thus to a much larger sub-index value
than in the latter.
The relative error sub-index ir. It counts for the relative
error with which the ANN learned the training dataset
“similar” case due to insufficient training and/or experimental
errors. The value of ir. would be equal to zero in the ideal case
that the training of the ANN was perfect. This index is used to
eliminate the risk of rendering as a "neighbor" a training case
for which the model displays significant prediction deviation.
The output sub-index io. It counts for the closeness
between the values of each physical property predicted for the
new test case and of the training dataset neighboring case.
This index is defined as follows :
y new − y train
io = .........................................................(3)
y new
The four sub-indices are compared to predefined
thresholds tc, tx, tr, to using the following transformation:
 ij 
î j = 101 − , j = c, x , r , o ..............................................(4)
 tj 
 
It can be readily seen that the transformed sub-indices
values of Eq.4 can take either positive or negative values
indicating either a close or a poor match respectively. For
instance, î x = 10 implies that there is a perfect reservoir fluid
composition match between the new test case and the database
fluid, while îo < 0 implies that the difference of their outputs
is larger than the permitted threshold. Obtaining at least one
negative sub-index indicates that the training case is not close
enough to be qualified as “similar”.
Once the sub-indices are calculated, the global similarity
index s is produced by their harmonic mean as indicated in the
following equation :
{ }
s = 4 î c ⋅ î x ⋅ î r ⋅ î o ⋅ min sgn(î c ), sgn(î x ), sgn( î r ), sgn( î o ) .(5)
4 N.VAROTSIS, V. GAGANIS, J.NIGHSWANDER
The similarity index s acquires a maximum value of 10 for
an unknown fluid exhibiting exactly the same input as one
training dataset case which was learned by the ANN model
during its training with a relative error of 0%. A negative
value of s obtained against all training cases indicates that no
neighboring fluids were found in the “similarity region”.
Repeated experiments confirmed that safe predictions were
often obtained, although no training study could be identified
inside the “similarity region”. It was noted that for these cases,
a certain number of training data points lay in the “limited
similarity region” possessing negative similarity index values
in the [-2,0] range. Thus, when a certain number of training
cases lie in the limited similarity region, it was proven that the
ANN predictions can be safely trusted.
It should be emphasised that the required tolerances for the
developed similarity test were set strictly enough to safeguard
that warnings will be issued whenever insufficient similarities
are detected with respect to the input between each test case
and the database studies.
Nevertheless, several unknown test fluids were noted for
which the ANN predictions were accurate enough despite the
fact that their description was considered as terra incognita by
the similarity test. This happened because the neural network
algorithm managed in these cases to extrapolate correctly the
underlying physical trend of the training database population.
Thus, there are cases of unknown studies for which no
neighboring training case can be located and the similarity test
produces warnings, although the ANN model manages to
provide accurate predictions.
Stability Test
To overcome this problem, a supplementary approach was
adopted for evaluating the ANN algorithm’s behavior. For any
unknown test case falling within an “area of competence” vis-
a-vis the underlying physical behavior and for each specific
output, any number of ANN models obtained by training is
expected to produce close outputs with minimum fluctuation
around their average value. On the other hand, for any
unknown study lying outside the competence of the models,
the predictions can vary over a wide range.
For the implementation of this test a numerical method
was selected rather than an analytical one due to the high non-
linearity of the ANN’s structure. Five extra ANN models, per
predicted property, were added to the original PVT Expert
model using the same training and prediction data sets. Each
sextuple represents multiple attempts of best fitting the
available data population.
This principle is illustrated simplistically in Figure 5 for a
single variable regression fit. The solid line represents the
hypothetical data underlying trend of a training dataset. The
training datapoints enclosed in curves define densely
populated areas which in turn correspond to similarity regions.
The ANN models predictions for any unknown fluid which
lies in these regions will be accurate as it will be indicated by
the similarity test.
For test cases lying outside the confidence area such as the
fluid shown with a circle in Figure 5, the similarity test fails
SPE 68235
to qualify the prediction due to the lack of close neighbors.
However, the functions realized by six ANN models (dashed
curves) are very close to each other as well as to the true
underlying data trend. Consequently, the marks which
correspond to the predictions of the ANN model sextuple are
also very close to each other proving the competence of the
ANNs in that area.
For evaluating the stability of the ANN sextuple
predictions y i for an unknown PVT study and a specific
property, the following indices are utilized :
The maximum span. It is defined as the difference of the
two outmost predictions
max{y i } − min{y i }
span = ............................................(6)
avg{y i }
The maximum deviation. It is defined as the largest
difference between the predictions and their average
max{ y i − avg{y i } }
dev = ............................................(7)
avg{y i }
Both definitions are graphically illustrated in Figure 6. For
qualifying the ANN prediction for a new test case, it is
required that both span and dev do not exceed 8% and 5% of
the average values predicted by the ANN sextuple
respectively.
An illustrative example for the prediction of the oil
formation volume factor, Bo at the bubble point for a case
study unknown to the model is provided in Table 5 and
Figure 6. The maximum span is found to be between the
ANN2 and ANN6 models predictions and equals 7.06% of the
predicted values average. The maximum deviation from the
average value occurs for the output of ANN6 and equals
4.22% of the former. None of the indices exceeds the defined
tolerances, thus rendering the prediction of the above study
stable.
Utilization of the ANN sextuple predictions average
value.
A major advantage for the accurate prediction of PVT
properties which arises from the introduction of the Quality
Assurance Tool is that it offers the opportunity to use the
average output of the ANN sextuple instead of a single output.
In this way, significant prediction errors are avoided in the
cases of fluids not satisfying the similarity and stability
criteria. Denoting for some specific property by y , ŷ i and ei
the lab measured PVT value, the ANN sextuple outputs and
the predictions deviations respectively, it follows that :
ŷ i = y + e i .....................................................................(8)
The average prediction y is given by :
1 1
y=
n ∑ ŷ
i
i = y+
n ∑e
i
i → y + b ...............................(9)
SPE 68235 QUALITY ASSURANCE TOOL FOR PVT SIMULATOR PREDICTIONS
The error distribution ei is expected to be a normal one19
with its center at the mean prediction offset b. The larger the
number of the trained ANN models, the closer is the error
average to the bias b which in turn depends on the ANN’s
accuracy obtained by the training procedure. By enlarging the
training database and repeating the retraining, the bias b value
can be decreased. Following the example demonstrated in
Table 5, the error of the average predicted output equals
0.44% which is much lower than the errors of individual ANN
models (e.g 2.40% for ANN2 and4.64% for ANN6). By
averaging the prediction values, large deviations of individual
ANN models are smoothed.
The flowchart of the developed Quality Assurance Tool is
presented in Figure 7. Firstly, the amount of information that
the ANN has learned during its training in the area around the
unknown test case, which defines its degree of confidence, is
assessed. Secondly, the ANNs degree of competence is
evaluated numerically to define the stability of their
predictions. Finally, for each PVT property, the ANN sextuple
average output value is adopted as the PVT Expert’s
prediction thus minimizing the risk of error deviations.
Examples
The performance of the Quality Assurance Tool is illustrated
through two examples of predictions for the oil volume factor
and the gas to oil ratio of a reservoir oil at bubble point
conditions.
The application of both the similarity and the stability tests
on a new fluid and on its closest training case for the first
example is illustrated in Table 6. The value of the
composition index ix is unique for both calculations. It is
calculated from the fluids compositions shown in the leftmost
columns and equals 5.23, as illustrated in the Similarity Test
section of the Table. The very high values calculated for the
conditions indices ic (8.73 and 7.53 respectively) are explained
by the very close input values (pb, Tres, etc) listed in the
topmost rows of the Table. The neighboring case has been
“learned” by the ANN models with learning errors of 0.98%
and 1.62% for the Bo and the GOR respectively, thus leading
to learning error indices ir of 8.05 and 6.77. The global
similarity indices s are positive and equal to 7.58 and 6.38 for
the Bo and the GOR respectively indicating that the
neighboring case is close enough to guarantee high confidence
for the trained ANN models.
From the Stability Test section of Table 5, it can be
readily seen that the outputs of the ANN sextuple fluctuate
within a very narrow range with dev and span displaying
values as low as 0.71%, 1.26% and 1.25, 1.73% respectively,
thus qualifying the models competence and prediction
stability. As expected, the ANN prediction relative errors of a
randomly selected single ANN for the unknown case equal
0.3% and 0.6% for Bo and GOR respectively rendering the
predictions accurate. The adopted average value leads to even
lower errors of 0.2% and 0.1%.
A second example is presented in Table 7. The closest
training database case found for the unknown fluid exhibits
similar input to the latter with the exemption of composition,
5
( î x = −1.14 ). As expected, the respective similarity indices s
are negative indicating that the particular training case should
be considered as lying outside the “similarity region”.
On the other hand, the ANN sextuple predictions for Bo
display dev and span equal to 0.97% and 1.81% respectively,
qualifying therefore the confidence and competence of the
trained models. Indeed, the deviation of the prediction with
respect to the lab measured value is 2.2%. For the GOR, the
models’ predictions fluctuate in a wider range as indicated by
the deviation and span indices exceeding their predefined
thresholds (7.69%, 12.5%). However, although both the
similarity and stability tests produced warnings, the utilization
of the averaging prediction value leads to a reasonably
accurate prediction of 104 (v/v) which is less than 3.1% off
the lab measured value.
The Quality Assurance Tool is also utilized for qualifying
the ANN models’ predictions for the gas condensate fluids
properties. Table 8 illustrates its application for the prediction
of the maximum retrograde liquid deposit % (RLD) occurring
during a Constant Mass study for an unknown fluid. A training
database study was identified in the “similarity region” as
indicated by the positive values of the sub-indices and of the
global similarity index (4.77). The ANN sextuple outputs
fluctuate in a narrow range, leading to dev and span values of
4.18% and 7.74% respectively. The results of both tests render
the ANN models predictions safe and, indeed, the actual
relative error of the prediction of a randomly selected single
ANN (ANN1) and of the adopted average value for this
specific fluid were 0.43% and 1.3 % respectively.
Results
For validating the method described above, the Quality
Assurance Tool was tested against a genuine set of 161 oil
fluids of worldwide origin.
For 96.2% of the unknown fluids tested (155 oils), the
average predicted values for the Bo deviated less than 5%
from the lab measured values. The percentage of the fluids
which were successfully qualified by the similarity and
stability tests was 95.6%.
For the prediction of the GOR, the average predicted
values deviated less than 5% from the lab values for 85.1% of
the 161 oils. The percentage of the fluids which were
successfully qualified by the similarity and stability tests was
73.9%.
Conclusions
An innovative approach for qualifying the predictions of a
PVT simulator based on artificial neural networks was
developed. The principle upon which this approach is based
on can be applied to all kinds of artificial neural network
based prediction models utilized in the petroleum industry.
Firstly, the Quality Assurance Tool estimates the “similarity”
of the reservoir fluid under test to the characteristics of the
fluids available in the training database by calculating the
similarity indices. Secondly, it assesses the degree of
competence with which each ANN learned during its training
6 N.VAROTSIS, V. GAGANIS, J.NIGHSWANDER
the underlying trend of the required PVT properties in the
neighborhood of the unknown test case.
The development of ANN sextuples per property improves
greatly the models’ performance by allowing the utilization of
the predictions average instead of a single output. The
application of such a filter smooths any probable prediction
deviations which may appear due to insufficient training, thus
minimizing the risk of obtaining significant predictions errors
for fluids which do not satisfy the similarity and stability
criteria.
The PVT Expert was successfully tested against a genuine
set of 161 oil fluids of worldwide origin and in 96.2% and
85.1% of the cases for the Bo and the GOR respectively, it
provided average predictions deviating less than 5% from the
lab values. Such a tool enhances the credibility of several
applications based on predictions. Among them is the
generation within hours of rapid and reliable PVT studies at
the wellsite thus improving the quality of onsite fluid
properties evaluation20 and widely extending fluid analysis to
reservoir fluid samples recovered by Formation Testers.
Nomenclature
Bo = Formation oil volume factor
GOR = Gas to Oil Ratio
RLD = Retrograde liquid deposit
pb = Bubble point
Tres = Reservoir temperature
ρb = Reservoir oil density
ρSTO = Stock tank oil density
MWRF = Reservoir fluid molecular weight
MWSTO = Stock tank oil molecular weight
MWFG = Flash gas molecular weight
Subscripts
b= bubble point
STO = stock tank oil
FG= flash gas
RF = reservoir fluid
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the management of
Oilphase, Division of Schlumberger EPS, for their permission
to publish this paper.
References
1. Haykin S., Neural Networks - A Comprehensive Foundation,
MacMillan College Publ. Company, USA, (1994).
2. Mohaghegh S., et al: “Petroleum Reservoir Characterization
With the Aid of Artificial Neural Networks”, Journal of
SPE 68235
Petroleum Science & Engineering, (1996), Vol. 16, pp. 263-
274.
3. Briones M., et al.: “Thermodynamic Characterization of
Volatile Hydrocarbon Reservoirs by Neuronal Networks”,
Procs. 3rd Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum
Engineering Conference, (1994), pp. 235-243.
4. Fletcher P. and Coveney P.: “Prediction of Thickening Times of
Oil Field Cements Using Artificial Neural Networks and Fourier
Transform Infrared Spectroscopy”, Advn Cem Bas Mat, (1995),
Vol 2., pp. 21-29.
5. W. Sung et al.: “Development of the HT-BP Neural Network
System for the Identification of a Well-Test Interpretation
Model”, SPE 30974, (1996).
6. Balan B. et al.: “State-Of-The-Art in Permeability
Determination From Well Log Data: Part 1- A Comparative
Study, Model Development”, SPE 30978 (1995).
7. Ahmed T. et al.: “Application of Neural Network Parameter
Prediction in Reservoir Characterization and Simulation – A
Case History: The Rabbit Hills Field”, SPE 38985, (1997).
8. Habiballah W.A, et al.: “Use of Neural Networks for Prediction
of Vapour-Liquid Equilibrium K-Values for Light Hydrocarbon
Mixtures ”, SPE 28597, 1994.
9. Gharbi R. and Elsharkawy A.: “Universal Neural Network
Based Model for Estimating the PVT properties of Crude Oil
Systems”, SPE 38099, (1997).
10. Varotsis N., et al: "A Novel Non-Iterative Method for the
Prediction of the PVT Behavior of Reservoir Fluids", SPE
56745, (1999).
11. Fauset L., Fundamentals of Neural Networks, Prentice Hall, NJ,
USA, 1996.
12. Cho S., Kim J. : "Rapid Backpropagation Learning Algorithms",
Circuits Systems and Signal Processing, (1993), Vol.12, No.2,
pp. 155-175.
13. Standing, M. B.: ”A Pressure Volume Temperature Correlation
for Mixture of California Oils and Gases,” Drill. & Prod. Prac,
API, Dallas (1947) 275-87.
14. Vazquez, M. and Beggs, H. D.: ”Correlation for Fluid Physical
Property Prediction,” SPE 6719, (1980).
15. Al-Marhoun, M. A.: “New Correlation for formation Volume
Factor of oil and gas Mixtures” Journal of Canadian Petroleum
Technology (March 1992) 22-26.
16. Courieu P.: "Three Algorithms for Estimating the Domain of
Validity of Feedforward Neural Networks", Neural Networks,
(1994), Vol.7, No.1, pp.169-174.
17. Liu Y. : "Unbiased Estimate of Generalization Error and Model
Selection in Neural Networks", Neural Networks, (1995), Vol.8,
No.2, pp.215-219.
18. Choi J., Choi C.: "Sensitivity Analysis of Multilayer Perceptron
with Differentiable Activation Functions", IEEE Trans. on
Neural Networks, (1992), Vo.3, No.1, pp. 101-107.
19. Anderson T., An Introduction to Multivariate Statistical
Analysis, John Willey & Sons, NY, USA, 1984.
20. Varotsis N. and Guieze P.: “Onsite Reservoir Fluid Properties
Evaluation”, SPE 18317, (1988).
SPE 68235 QUALITY ASSURANCE TOOL FOR PVT SIMULATOR PREDICTIONS 7

TABLE 1 – RANGE OF THE PVT DATABASE PROPERTIES

Oils Gas Condensates
Inputs Min Max Inputs Min Max
Bubble point (MPa) 0.25 46.70 Dew point (MPa) 10.86 72.62
Reservoir temperature (oK) 311 466 Reservoir temperature (oK) 321 451
Fluid molecular weight (gr/mole) 37 352 Fluid molecular weight (gr/mole) 18 48
Stock tank oil density (kg/m3) 786 999 Field GOR (vol/vol) 675 75280
PVT Properties PVT Properties
Formation oil volume factor (vol/vol) 1.04 7.69 CMS - Retrograde liquid deposit (% vol) 0.01 42.94
Gas to oil ratio (vol/vol) 3 2010 CVD - Retrograde liquid deposit (% vol) 0.01 40.36
Reservoir oil density (kg/m3) 446 946 Cumulative produced fluid (% mole) 48.6 87.5
Gas phase relative density 0.561 3.078 Gas relative density 0.622 1.597
Gas phase z factor 0.686 1.011 z factor 0.789 1.516
Oil viscosity (cP) 0.10 47.33

TABLE 2 – PERFORMANCE OF THE ANN MODEL FOR 161 OILS

Training Set Validation Set
Property Avg error St.dev Max error Avg error St.dev Max error
Formation oil volume factor (%) 1.17 1.02 5.40 1.94 2.93 8.34
Gas to Oil Ratio (%) 3.84 3.73 11.94 5.51 7.21 13.11
Liberated gas relative density (%) 1.80 1.70 7.34 2.21 2.13 7.14

TABLE 3 – PERFORMANCE OF THE ANN MODEL FOR GAS CONDENSATES

Training Set Validation Set
Property Avg error St.dev Max error Avg error St.dev Max error
CMS - Relative volume (%) 1.73 1.41 7.47 1.80 1.28 4.70
CMS - Max condensation (% vol) 0.55 0.59 3.34 1.06 1.24 4.35
CVD - Max condensation (% vol) 0.29 0.27 1.25 0.38 0.33 1.01
Cumulative produced fluid (%) 0.76 0.61 3.26 0.95 0.74 2.16
Gas relative density (%) 2.09 2.00 7.84 2.19 1.59 6.45
z factor (%) 0.87 0.83 3.59 1.03 0.87 4.50

TABLE 4 – PERFORMANCE OF CORRELATIONS VERSUS THE ANN MODELS FOR THE PREDICTION OF Bo at pb
Standing Al-Mahroun Vazquez & Beggs ANN Models
Average relative error % 2.59 2.24 3.23 1.17

TABLE 5 – SAMPLE ANN MODELS OUTPUTS FOR Bo AT THE pb

ANN 1 ANN 2 ANN 3 ANN 4 ANN 5 ANN 6 Avg Lab
Outputs 1.275 1.325 1.274 1.307 1.315 1.234 1.288 1.294
Error (%) 1.47 2.40 1.55 1.00 1.62 4.64 0.44 -

TABLE 6 – PREDICTION QUALITY ASSURANCE TEST FOR AN OIL

New fluid Training case pb Tres
o
ρb MWRF ρSTO MW STO MWFG
mole% mole% MPa K gr/cm3 gr/mole gr/cm3 gr/mole gr/mole
N2 0.17 0.13 New 10.01 385 731 130 864 215 30.2
CO2 0.24 0.23 Training 10.76 383 732 123 850 188 31.0
H2S 0.00 0.00
C1 45.94 45.74 Stability Test
C2 7.62 8.39 ANN 1 ANN 2 ANN 3 ANN 4 ANN 5 ANN 6 Avg Dev % Span %
C3 3.37 4.41 Bo 1.577 1.592 1.575 1.582 1.595 1.582 1.584 0.71 1.26
iC4 0.83 1.23 GOR 174 174 174 173 171 173 173 1.25 1.73
nC4 2.98 2.35
iC5 1.65 1.30 Similarity Test
nC5 2.10 1.70 ic ix ir io s
C6 3.05 3.03 Bo 8.73 5.23 8.05 9.01 7.58
C7 4.21 4.11 GOR 7.53 5.23 6.77 6.22 6.38
C8 4.41 4.68
C9 3.32 3.64 PVT Results
C10 2.40 2.76 PVT Lab ANN model Err % Avg Err %
C11 1.72 2.09 Bo 1.581 1.577 0.3 1.584 0.2
C12+ 15.99 14.23 GOR 173 174 0.6 173 0.1
8 N.VAROTSIS, V. GAGANIS, J.NIGHSWANDER SPE 68235

TABLE 7 – PREDICTION QUALITY ASSURANCE TEST FOR AN OIL (CORRECTION BY AVERAGING)

New fluid Training case pb Tres ρb
o
MWRF ρSTO MW STO MWFG
mole% mole% MPa K gr/cm3 gr/mole gr/cm3 gr/mole gr/mole
N2 1.40 0.63 New 10.01 385 731 130 864 215 30.2
CO2 4.70 0.48 Training 10.76 383 732 123 850 188 31.0
H2S 0.00 0.00
C1 17.28 20.77 Stability Test
C2 5.14 7.81 ANN 1 ANN 2 ANN 3 ANN 4 ANN 5 ANN 6 Avg Dev % Span %
C3 9.48 8.52 Bo 1.433 1.422 1.448 1.433 1.441 1.436 1.436 0.97 1.81
iC4 1.83 1.36 GOR 99 104 106 109 96 109 104 7.69 12.5
nC4 6.05 5.15
iC5 2.30 1.79 Similarity Test
nC5 2.67 3.02 ic ix ir io s
C6 3.94 4.32 Bo 6.05 -1.14 9.39 9.29 -4.95
C7 6.30 5.84 GOR 5.14 -1.14 4.52 5.68 -3.5
C8 6.15 6.61
C9 4.77 4.81 PVT Results
C10 3.96 4.40 PVT Lab ANN model Err % Avg Err %
C11 2.55 3.43 Bo 1.469 1.433 2.5 1.436 2.2
C12+ 21.47 21.05 GOR 107 99 7.5 104 3.1

TABLE 8 – PREDICTION QUALITY ASSURANCE TEST FOR A GAS CONDENSATE

New fluid Training case pb Tres
o
z MWRF ρSTO
mole% mole% MPa K - gr/mole gr/cm3
N2 0.12 0.36 New 27.68 399 0.95 23.7 755
CO2 5.08 4.79 Training 30.16 397 0.97 22.6 757
H2S 3.70 2.11
C1 81.62 83.81 Stability Test
C2 2.31 2.55 ANN 1 ANN 2 ANN 3 ANN 4 ANN 5 ANN 6 Avg Dev % Span %
C3 1.54 1.52 RLD 2.76 2.62 2.60 2.76 2.73 2.81 2.71 4.18 7.74
iC4 0.35 0.35
nC4 0.84 0.81
iC5 0.40 0.35 Similarity Test
nC5 0.52 0.45 ic ix ir io s
C6 0.68 0.57 RLD 6.38 2.65 3.84 7.95 4.77
C7 0.63 0.54
C8 0.57 0.45
C9 0.45 0.36 PVT Results
C10 0.36 0.29 PVT Lab ANN model Err% Avg Err %
C11 0.23 0.20 RLD 2.76 2.75 0.43 2.71 1.3
C12+ 0.62 0.49
SPE 68235 QUALITY ASSURANCE TOOL FOR PVT SIMULATOR PREDICTIONS 9

1.2
1.0
Predicted
1.0
Experimental
0.8
0.8
Low volatility

0.6 0.6
(Bo-1)/(Bopb-1)

CVD RLD %
0.4
0.4
Medium volatility
0.2
0.2

High volatility 0.0

5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0.0 Pressure (MPa)
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
p/pb Fig. 3-Comparison of the predicted CVD RLD % curve of a low
liquid deposit gas to the PVT Lab one.
Fig. 1-Three pairs of Bo curves sharing similar Bo @ pb and pb
values. There is a perfect match for each pair of the normalized
curves. Each pair is indicated by a solid and a dotted line.

2.2
Predicted Similarity region

2.0 Experimental
Limited similarity region

1.8
s=10
Bo (vol/vol) s=0
1.6 s=-2
s<-2

1.4
Fig. 4-Simplistic illustration to demonstrate the establishment of
1.2 the similarity test.

1.0
0 15 30 45
Pressure (MPa)

Fig. 2-Comparison of the predicted reservoir oil Bo curve to the

PVT Lab one. Similarity regions
Outputs

Prediction point

Training point

Inputs

Fig. 5-Single-variable regression fit to demonstrate the principle

of the stability test.
10 N.VAROTSIS, V. GAGANIS, J.NIGHSWANDER SPE 68235

Lab value
1.30

Average b
Span

Dev
1.25

1.20
ANN 1 ANN 2 ANN 3 ANN 4 ANN 5 ANN 6

Fig. 6-Definition of maximum span, deviation and the average

output value for the prediction of Bo at pb.

New fluid
input

PVT Expert

Similarity Training Stability

check Database check

Establishment of Establishment
similarity of stability

Qualified
average
predictions

Fig. 7-Flowchart of the Quality Assurance Tool.