.

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, 1720 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 utilised, 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 case1-2. 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 ANN based PVT Expert model. This tool,
for an unknown fluid, 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.
This innovative approach was successfully tested against a
large set of studies "unseen" by the PVT Expert. The ability of
providing confidence for the accuracy of the PVT predictions
and of assessing their quality, significantly upgrades the

Trademark of Schlumberger

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 data3. 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 PVT Expert model4 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 satisfactorily 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.
Although each PVT property varies in this data set in 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.
The input data for the developed ANNs were selected to
include key measurements which could be rapidly performed
on the produced fluids either onsite or in the PVT lab. 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 PVT Expert provides the full set of properties
obtained from the constant mass study, the differential
vaporization, the viscosity study and the depletion study.
Curves such as the isothermal compressibility, the oil volume
factor, the gas phase z factor and the retrograde liquid deposit
ones are predicted in the full pressure range.

N.VAROTSIS, V. GAGANIS, J.NIGHSWANDER

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 for the training was for the ANN
models to learn the underlying thermodynamic behavior of the
training dataset rather than individual data points
(overtraining)5.
The performance obtained from the trained ANNs was
subsequently doublechecked 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
ANN models. The average, the standard deviation and the
maximum error values for both the training and validation sets
are listed in Table 1. It can be seen that generally 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 2, presents the performance of the ANN models for
gas condensate properties. Their accuracy indicates that the
performance of PVT Expert for these fluids is of the same
order of magnitude as for the oils with the relative error
averages ranging between 0.5-2.5%.
A very important inherent drawback of every single PVT
prediction model available so far (correlation, Equation-ofState 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, such as the PVT Expert,
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.
Based on the above, the objective of this study was to
develop a Quality Assurance Evaluator 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. Secondly, to develop a stability test for
assessing the degree of competence by 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 is based on the principle that the existence of
neighboring training studies similar enough to the new test
case can ensure that the PVT Expert will interpolate safely
among the training data sets and hence its predictions can be
considered accurate.
The principle is illustrated in a simplistic 2-D plot in
Figure 3, where the new test fluid is shown in the centre of the
white inner circle defined as the confidence region, in the
sense that the positioning of training data sets inside this circle
would provide confidence for the quality of the ANN
prediction. Training data sets positioned in the outer grey
circle defined as the limited confidence region can qualify
the ANN output for the new test case only when additional
conditions are fulfilled. Finally, the area in the compositional

SPE 68235

mapping outside the above two circles is defined as the no

confidence region.
To quantify the positioning of each one of the training
cases in the multi-dimensional space with respect to the new
test case, a similarity index s is defined. 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 was
constructed from the following four sub-indices :
The composition sub-index ix. It counts for the similarity
between two 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 = , ... , C
2
n+

........................................(1)

The conditions sub-index ic. It counts for the similarity

between two studies with respect to their input, except for
fluid composition. This index is defined as the difference of
the two studies inputs weighted by the sensitivity6 of the ANN
output around the new case input.
i c = j
j

y new
j

x new

.........................(2)

j = p b , Tres , MWRF , b , STO , MWFG , MWSTO

Evidently, differences, for example, of 1% in CH4 and C12+

molar compositions are weighted by different sensitivity
factors for a heavy and a volatile oil.
The relative error sub-index ir. It equals to the relative
error by which the ANN learned the training dataset
neighbor case. This index is used to eliminate the risk of
rendering as a "neighbor" a training case the behavior of
which was not learned adequately by the model.
The output sub-index io. It counts for the similarity
between the physical properties values obtained for the new
test case and of the training dataset neighbor cases. This
index is defined as follows :
io =

y new y train
y new

........................................................(3)

The four sub-indices are compared to the defined

thresholds tc, tx, tr, to using the following tranformation:

i = 101 i j , j = x , c, r , o .............................................(4)
j
tj

It can be readily seen that the transformed sub-indices

values can take either positive or negative values indicating
either a close or a poor match respectively. For instance,
i = 10 implies that there is a perfect reservoir fluid
x

composition match between the new test case and the database
one, while i < 0 implies that the difference of their outputs is
o

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 neighbor.

SPE 68235

QUALITY ASSURANCE TOOL FOR PVT SIMULATOR PREDICTIONS

Once the sub-indices are calculated, the similarity index s

is produced by their harmonic mean as indicated in the
following equation :

s = 4 ic i x i r io min sgn(ic ), sgn(i x ), sgn(i r ), sgn(io ) ..(5)

The similarity index s acquires a maximum value of 10 for
an unknown fluid exhibiting exactly the same input as a
training dataset case which was learned by the PVT Expert
during its training with a relative error of 0%. A negative
value of s indicates that no training cases were found in the
confidence region
Repeated experiments confirmed that safe PVT Expert
predictions were often obtained although no training study
could be found inside the confidence region. It was noted
that for these cases, a number of training data points was lying
in the limited confidence region possessing negative
similarity index values in the [-2,0] range. Thus, when a
certain number of training cases lie in the limited confidence
region, the ANN predictions can be safely qualified.
It should be emphasised that the tolerances for the
developed similarity test were set strictly enough to safeguard
that warnings will be issued whenever considerable prediction
errors might be obtained. For the cases where no neighbor
fluids can be traced, the confidence of the ANN prediction can
not be confirmed from the point of view of the input.
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 ingognita by
the model. This is so because the neural network algorithm
managed in these cases to extrapolate correctly the underlying
general trend of the training database population.
Stability Test
In order to be able to qualify correct predictions for unknown
studies exhibiting negative similarity indices, a supplementary
approach was adopted for evaluating the ANN algorithms
behavior. A numerical method was selected rather than an
analytic one due to the high non-linearity of the ANNs
structure. Five extra ANN sets were added to the original PVT
Expert per predicted property using the same training and
prediction data sets. These six models represent multiple
attempts of best fitting the available training data sets. For
any, unseen by the ANNs, prediction study falling within an
area of competence vis-a-vis the underlying physical
behavior, all ANN models are expected to produce steady
outputs with minimum fluctuation around the average value.
On the other hand, for any unknown study lying outside the
competence of the PVT Expert, the ANN models produce
predictions which vary over a wide range.
This principle is illustrated in a simplistic representation in
Figure 4 for a single variable regression fit. The six marks
correspond to the predictions of the ANN models for a
common input which lies far from the confidence region of
the Quality Assurance Tool. It can be readily seen that the
functions realized by the ANN models (dashed curves) and the

corresponding predictions (marks) are very close to the

hypothetical data underlying trend (solid line).
For monitoring the stability of the ANN predictions y i for
an unknown PVT study, the following indices were utilized :
The maximum span. It is defined as the difference of the
two outmost predictions
span =

max{y i } min{y i }
............................................(6)
avg{y i }

The maximum deviation. It is defined as the largest

difference between the predictions and their average
dev =

max{ y i avg{y i } }
avg{y i }

............................................(7)

Both definitions are graphically illustrated in Figure 5. For

qualifying the ANN prediction when applied to a new test
case, it is required that both span and dev do not exceed 8%
and 5% of the average predicted values respectively.
An illustrative example for the prediction of the oil
formation volume factor, Bo, at the bubble point for an
unknown to the PVT Expert fluid is provided in Table 3 and
Figure 5.
The maximum span is found to be between ANN1 and
ANN4 and equals 14.3% of the average value. The maximum
deviation occurs between ANN4 and the average value and
equals 8.3% of the latter. Both indices clearly exceed the
defined tolerances, thus rendering the prediction of the above
study unstable.
Utilization of the predictions average value. A major
advantage which arises from the introduction of the Quality
Assurance Tool is that it offers the opportunity to use the
average output of all ANN models per property instead of a
single output. In this way, it is avoided to obtain significant
prediction errors for cases of fluids not satisfying the
similarity and stability criteria. Denoting by y , y i and ~y the
lab measured PVT value, the ANN models outputs and their
statistical mean respectively, it follows that :
y = ~y + e = (y + b ) + e ...............................................(8)
i

where b stands for the average prediction offset. The

average prediction y is given by :
y=

1
1
y i = y + b + e i ..........................................(9)

n i
n i

For the prediction of each PVT property, the larger the

number of the trained ANN models, the closer the error
average is to zero since the error distribution is assumed to be
a normal one7. Following the example in Table 3, the error of
the average output equals 0.70% which is much lower than the
errors of individual ANN models (5.64% for ANN2 and
9.04% for ANN4). By averaging the prediction values,
extreme deviations of individual ANN models can be
smoothed. It should be noted that the bias b depends on the

N.VAROTSIS, V. GAGANIS, J.NIGHSWANDER

ANNs experience obtained by the training procedure. By

enlarging the training database and repeating the retraining,
the value of b, however, can be decreased even further.
The flowchart of the developed Quality Assurance
Evaluator is presented in Figure 6. The predictions of the PVT
Expert can be confidently trusted if the new fluid lies close
enough to training data sets and/or the ANN models
predictions are stable.
Examples
The performance of the Quality Assurance Tool is illustrated
through an example of estimating the quality of the PVT
Expert's predictions for the oil volume factor and the gas to oil
ratio of a reservoir oil at bubble point conditions.
It can be readily seen from Table 4 that a training case is
found exhibiting input values very close to the new test case
ones. The four sub-indices ij (j=x,c,r,o) possess large positive
values and the similarity indices equal 7.58 and 6.38 for the Bo
and the GOR respectively. Furthermore, the ANN models
outputs fluctuate within a very narrow range with dev and
span values as low as 0.71%, 1.26% and 1.25, 1.73%
respectively thus qualifying the predictions of PVT Expert.
This is confirmed indeed by the prediction relative errors
which equal 0.3% and 0.6% for Bo and GOR respectively.
A second example is presented in Table 5. The closest
training database case found for the unknown fluid exhibits
similar input to the latter with the exemption of composition,
( i = 1.14 ). As expected, the respective similarity indices
x

are negative indicating that the particular training case should

be considered as lying outside the confidence region.
On the other hand, the ANN models predictions for Bo
display dev and span equal to 0.94% and 1.81% respectively,
qualifying therefore the PVT Experts output. Indeed, the
deviation of the prediction with respect to the lab measured
value is only 2.5%. For the GOR, the models predictions
fluctuate in a wider range as indicated by the deviation and
span indices exceeding their predefined thresholds (7.54%,
12.51%). However, although the Quality Assurance Tool can
not qualify the models output for GOR, the average value of
the predictions equals 104 (v/v) which is less than 3.1% off
the lab measured value.
The Quality Assurance Tool is also utilized for qualifying
the PVT Experts predictions for the properties of gas
condensate fluids. Table 6, illustrates its application for the
prediction of the maximum retrograde liquid deposit %
occuring during a constant mass study for an unknown fluid.
A training database study was identified in the confidence
region as indicated by the highly positive values of the subindices. The ANN models outputs fluctuate in a narrow
range, leading to dev and span values of 4.18% and 7.74%
respectively. Both results render the PVT Expert predictions
safe and, indeed, the actual relative error for the specific fluid
was 0.43%.

SPE 68235

Results
For validating the method described above, the Quality
Assurance Tool was tested against a genuine set of 161 oil
fluids of worldwide origin. The results obtained for the Bo and
GOR values at the bubble point are illustrated in Figures 7
and 8 respectively.
The success rate of the PVT Expert outputs for the Bo
compared to the reported lab values is shown in the first
column of Figure 7. For 96.2% of the new fluids tested, the Bo
prediction deviated less than 5% from the lab value. The
percentage of the fluids which were successfully qualified by
the Quality Assurance Evaluator was 95.6%. Three of the
fluids (1.8% of the total) for which the prediction deviation
was more than 5% were qualified. Nevertheless, even for these
cases, the utilized average prediction provided accurate
answers for two out of the three.
The success rate of the PVT Expert outputs for the GOR is
shown in Figure 8. The GOR prediction deviated less than 5%
from the lab value for 85.1% (137 cases) of the new fluids
tested. The percentage of the fluids which were successfully
qualified by the Quality Assurance Evaluator was 73.9%.
Only eight of the fluids (5% of the total) for which the
prediction deviation was more than 5% were qualified. But
even for these cases, the utilized average prediction provided
accurate answers for five out of the eight fluids.
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 kind of artificial neural network based
prediction models utilized in the petroleum industry. Firstly,
the Quality Assurance Tool estimates the closeness of the
reservoir fluid under test to the characteristics of the fluids
available in the training database by calculating the similarity
indices.
Secondly, the Quality Assurance Tool assesses the degree
of competence by which each ANN learned, during its
training, the underlying trend of the required PVT properties
in the neighborhood of the unknown test case. The prediction
of the PVT Expert for a given property can be confidently
trusted if the new fluid lies within the confidence region
and/or the maximun span and the maximum deviation of the
ANNs predictions do not exceed the predefined thresholds.
The Evaluator was successfully tested against a genuine
set of 161 oil fluids of worldwide origin and in nearly 96% of
the cases it had successully qualified the accuracy of the ANN
models predictions. Such a tool can help promoting several
field and laboratory applications based on predictions. Among
them, is the generation of rapid and reliable PVT studies at the
wellsite within hours enhancing thus the quality of onsite fluid
properties evaluation services such as the FPE8 and widely
extending fluid analysis to reservoir fluid samples recovered
by Formation Testers.

SPE 68235

QUALITY ASSURANCE TOOL FOR PVT SIMULATOR PREDICTIONS

Nomenclature
Bo = Formation oil volume factor
GOR = Gas to Oil Ratio
RLD = Retrograde liquid deposit
pb = Bubble point
Tres = Reservoir temperature
b = Reservoir oil density
STO = 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. Liu Y. : "Unbiased Estimate of Generalization Error and Model
Selection in Neural Networks", Neural Networks, (1995), Vol.8,
No.2, pp.215-219.
2. Courieu P.: "Three Algorithms for Estimating the Domain of
Validity of Feedforward Neural Networks", Neural Networks,
(1994), Vol.7, No.1, pp.169-174.
3. Haykin S., Neural Networks - A Comprehensive Foundation,
MacMillan College Publ. Company, USA, (1994).
4. Varotsis N., et al: "A Novel Non-Iterative Method for the
Prediction of the PVT Behavior of Reservoir Fluids", SPE
56745, (1999).
5. Cho S., Kim J. : "Rapid Backpropagation Learning Algorithms",
Circuits Systems and Signal Processing, (1993), Vol.12, No.2,
pp. 155-175.
6. 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.
7. Anderson T., An Introduction to Multivariate Statistical
Analysis, John Willey & Sons, NY, USA, 1984.
8. Varotsis N. and Guieze P.: Onsite Reservoir Fluid Properties
Evaluation, SPE 18317, (1988).

TABLE 1 PERFORMANCE OF THE PVT EXPERT 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 2 PERFORMANCE OF THE PVT EXPERT 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 3 - SAMPLE ANN MODELS OUTPUTS FOR Bo AT THE pb
ANN 1 ANN 2 ANN 3 ANN 4 ANN 5 ANN 6
Avg
Lab
Outputs
1.225
1.367
1.289
1.411
1.276
1.250
1.303
1.294
Error (%)
5.33
5.64
0.39
9.04
1.39
3.40
0.70
-

N.VAROTSIS, V. GAGANIS, J.NIGHSWANDER

New fluid
mole%

N2
CO2
H2S
C1
C2
C3
iC4
nC4
iC5
nC5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
C11
C12+

0.17
0.24
0.00
45.94
7.62
3.37
0.83
2.98
1.65
2.10
3.05
4.21
4.41
3.32
2.40
1.72
15.99

SPE 68235

TABLE 4 PREDICTION QUALITY ASSURANCE TEST FOR AN OIL

Training case
pb
Tres
MWRF
MW STO
b
STO
mole%

0.13
0.23
0.00
45.74
8.39
4.41
1.23
2.35
1.30
1.70
3.03
4.11
4.68
3.64
2.76
2.09
14.23

MPa

gr/cm

New
Training

10.01
10.76

385
383

731
732

Bo
GOR

ANN 1
1.577
174

ANN 2
1.592
174

ANN 3
1.575
174

Bo
GOR

ic
8.73
7.53

Bo
GOR

Similarity Test
ix
ir
5.23
8.05
5.23
6.77

PVT Lab
1.581
173

gr/mole

gr/cm

130
123

864
850

Stability Test
ANN 4 ANN 5
1.582
1.595
173
171
io
9.01
6.22

s
7.58
6.38

PVT Results
PVT Expert
1.577
174

Err %
0.3
0.6

MWFG

gr/mole

gr/mole

215
188

30.2
31.0

ANN 6
1.582
173

Avg
1.584
173

Avg
1.584
173

Err %
0.2
0.1

Dev %
0.71
1.25

Span %
1.26
1.73

TABLE 5 PREDICTION QUALITY ASSURANCE TEST FOR AN OIL (CORRECTION BY AVERAGING)

New fluid Training case
pb
Tres
MWRF
MW STO MWFG
b
STO
N2
CO2
H2S
C1
C2
C3
iC4
nC4
iC5
nC5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
C11
C12+

mole%

mole%

1.40
4.70
0.00
17.28
5.14
9.48
1.83
6.05
2.30
2.67
3.94
6.30
6.15
4.77
3.96
2.55
21.47

0.63
0.48
0.00
20.77
7.81
8.52
1.36
5.15
1.79
3.02
4.32
5.84
6.61
4.81
4.40
3.43
21.05

New fluid
mole%

N2
CO2
H2S
C1
C2
C3
iC4
nC4
iC5
nC5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
C11
C12+

0.12
5.08
3.70
81.62
2.31
1.54
0.35
0.84
0.40
0.52
0.68
0.63
0.57
0.45
0.36
0.23
0.62

MPa

gr/cm

New
Training

10.01
10.76

385
383

731
732

Bo
GOR

ANN 1
1.433
99

ANN 2
1.422
104

ANN 3
1.448
106

Bo
GOR

ic
6.05
5.14

Bo
GOR

Similarity Test
ix
ir
-1.14
9.39
-1.14
4.52

PVT Lab
1.469
107

gr/mole

gr/cm

130
123

864
850

Stability Test
ANN 4 ANN 5
1.433
1.441
109
96
io
9.29
5.68

s
-4.95
-3.5

PVT Results
PVT Expert
1.433
99

Err %
2.5
7.5

gr/mole

gr/mole

215
188

30.2
31.0

ANN 6
1.436
109

Avg
1.436
104

Avg
1.436
104

Err %
2.2
3.1

Dev %
0.97
7.69

Span %
1.81
12.5

Dev %
4.18

Span %
7.74

TABLE 6 PREDICTION QUALITY ASSURANCE TEST FOR A GAS CONDENSATE

Training case
pb
Tres
z
MWRF
STO
mole%

0.36
4.79
2.11
83.81
2.55
1.52
0.35
0.81
0.35
0.45
0.57
0.54
0.45
0.36
0.29
0.20
0.49

MPa

gr/mole

gr/cm

23.7
22.6

755
757

New
Training

27.68
30.16

399
397

0.95
0.97

RLD

ANN 1
2.76

ANN 2
2.62

ANN 3
2.60

RLD

ic
6.38

RLD

Similarity Test
ix
ir
2.65
3.84

PVT Lab
2.76

Stability Test
ANN 4 ANN 5
2.76
2.73

io
7.95

s
4.77

PVT Results
PVT Expert
2.75

Err%
0.43

ANN 6
2.81

Avg
2.71

Avg
2.71

Err %
1.3

SPE 68235

QUALITY ASSURANCE TOOL FOR PVT SIMULATOR PREDICTIONS

2.2
Predicted
Experimental

2.0

Competence region
1.8
Bo (vol/vol)

Outputs

1.6
1.4

Prediction point

1.2

Training point
1.0
0

15

30

45

Inputs

Pressure (MPa)
Fig. 1-Comparison of the predicted reservoir oil Bo curve to the
PVT Lab one.

Fig. 4-Single-variable regression fit to demonstrate the principle

of the stability test.

1.45

1.2
Predicted

Span

Experimental

1.35

0.8

Dev

1.40

1.0

Average
1.30

0.6
CVD RLD %

0.4

Lab value

1.25
1.20
ANN 1

0.2
0.0
5

10

15

20
25
Pressure (MPa)

30

35

ANN 2

ANN 3

ANN 4

ANN 5

ANN 6

Fig. 5-Definition of maximum span, deviation and the average

output value.
New fluid
input

Fig. 2-Comparison of the predicted CVD RLD % curve of a low

liquid deposit gas to the PVT Lab one.

PVT Expert
Confidence region
Limited confidence
region
No confidence
region

s=10
s=0
s=-2
s=-

Similarity
check

Training
Database

Stability
check

Establishment of
similarity

Prediction
qualification

Establishment
of stability

Fig. 3-Simplistic illustration to demonstrate the establishment of

affinity of a new test to the training database.
Fig. 6-Flowchart of the Quality Assurance Tool.

N.VAROTSIS, V. GAGANIS, J.NIGHSWANDER

100
80

SPE 68235

100

96.2%
155

95.6%
154

96.2%
155

80

60

60

40

40

20

20

85.1%
137

73.9%
119

85.1%
137

0
PVT Expert

Qualified

Averaging

Fig. 7-Success rate of the PVT Expert, the Quality Assurance

Tool and the Average Value method for the prediction of Bo for
161 oil studies.

PVT Expert

Qualified

Averaging

Fig. 8- Success rate of the PVT Expert, the Quality Assurance

Tool and the Average Value method for the prediction of GOR for
161 oil studies.