Application of Artificial Neural Networks
to Downhole Fluid Analysis
Peter Hegeman, SPE, and Chengli Dong, SPE, Schlumberger; and Nikos Varotsis, SPE,
and Vassilis Gaganis, SPE, Technical University of Crete
Summary
Reservoir characterization and asset management require compre-
hensive information about formation fluids. Obtaining this infor-
mation at all stages of the exploration and development cycle is
essential for field planning and operation. Traditionally, fluid
information has been obtained by capturing samples and then
measuring the pressure/volume/temperature (PVT) properties in a
laboratory. More recently, downhole fluid analysis (DFA) during
formation testing has provided real-time fluid information. How-
ever, the extreme conditions of the downhole environment limit
the DFA-tool measurements to only a small subset of the fluid
properties provided by a laboratory. Nevertheless, these tools are
valuable in predicting other PVT properties from the measured
data. These predictions can be used in real time to optimize the
sampling program, to help evaluate completion decisions, and to
understand flow-assurance issues.
The petroleum industry has devoted much effort to develop-
ing computational methods to model phase behavior. Two
approaches are prevalent—simple correlations and equation-
of-state (EOS) models. However, in recent years, artificial-
neural-network (ANN) technology has been applied successfully
to many petroleum-engineering problems, including the predic-
tion of PVT behavior. ANN technology can recognize patterns
in data, adjust dynamically to changes, infer general rules from
specific cases, and accept a large number of input variables.
An ANN architecture can allow for continuous improvement by
expanding the training database with new data.
In this paper, we present the application of ANN technology to
DFA. We demonstrate this with an ANN model that uses the
DFA-tool measurements of fluid composition as input and pro-
duces predictions of gas/oil ratio (GOR), a key PVT property used
in real time to monitor a formation-tester sampling job. The ANN
also provides an uncertainty estimation of its outputs as a quality-
assurance indicator. We compare ANN results with those from the
algorithms used by DFA tools.
Introduction
Reservoir-fluid properties, such as hydrocarbon composition,
GOR, density, viscosity, carbon dioxide (CO2) content, pH, and
PVT behavior, are key factors for surface-facility design and
optimization of production strategies. In most hydrocarbon reser-
voirs, fluid composition varies vertically and laterally in the for-
mation. Fluids may exhibit gradual changes in composition
caused by gravity or biodegradation, or they may exhibit more-
abrupt changes caused by structural or stratigraphic compartmen-
talization.
DFA. DFA techniques, including contamination monitoring, com-
position measurement, and single-phase assurance, can provide
real-time fluid-property information during formation testing
(Smits et al. 1995; Mullins et al. 2000; Betancourt et al. 2004;
Fujisawa et al. 2002; Dong et al. 2006; Elshahawi et al. 2004;
Fujisawa et al. 2008). DFA helps ensure that representative sam-
ples are obtained and allows an unlimited number of zones to be
Copyright ã 2009 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 123423) was revised for publication from paper IPTC 11268, first pre-
sented at the International Petroleum Technology Conference, Dubai, 4–6 December 2007.
Original manuscript received for review 27 July 2007. Revised manuscript received for
review 31 July 2008. Paper peer approved 1 August 2008.
8 February 2009 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
evaluated in a “fluid scanning” mode. The sampling program can
be optimized during the job, and the operator can decide when and
where to collect samples and how many samples to collect. The
ability of focused-sampling cleanup to supply virtually uncontam-
inated fluids—with faster cleanup time—further ensures optimal
DFA results (O’Keefe et al. 2008; Del Campo et al. 2006).
Current DFA techniques use the absorption spectroscopy of
reservoir fluids in the visible to near-infrared (NIR) region. On
the basis of their molecular structure, different types of hydrocar-
bons have vibration absorptions at different wavelengths, and a
simplified hydrocarbon composition can be quantitatively deter-
mined from the NIR spectrum. With the latest DFA tool (Dong
et al. 2007), the hydrocarbon composition comprises five groups:
methane (C1), ethane (C2), propane to pentane (C3–C5), hexane
and heavier hydrocarbons (C6+), and CO2. For single-phase assur-
ance it is possible to detect gas liberation (bubblepoint) or liquid
dropout (dewpoint) while pumping reservoir fluid to the wellbore,
before filling a sample bottle.
Despite these advances, DFA measurements are limited by the
extreme high-temperature/high-pressure conditions of the down-
hole environment. Nevertheless, these measurements are valuable
in predicting other, nonmeasured PVT properties. They are also
valuable in providing uncertainty estimates for the predicted PVT
properties. It is desirable to have a means to assess the quality and
consistency of the DFA measurements—for example, to deter-
mine in real time if a sensor is malfunctioning.
Modeling the PVT Behavior of Reservoir Fluids. As noted by
Varotsis et al. (1999), two main approaches to this task are common.
The first involves the use of simple correlations to provide single-
point predictions of PVT properties. The other approach is the use of
EOS models upon which the entire set of calculations is based.
Varotsis et al. (1999) discuss the advantages and disadvantages
of these techniques. The simple correlations generally take into
account just a few independent variables and provide relatively
low-accuracy results. EOS models can be quite accurate, but their
predictions cannot be safely used without prior tuning of the model
against some physical-properties measurements and the composi-
tional description. EOS tuning is performed each time against a
single fluid; the tuning is operator-dependent and nonunique.
In recent years, ANN technology has been applied to a large
number of petroleum-engineering problems. These problems in-
clude such diverse applications as control in drilling dynamics
(Dashevskiy et al. 1999), well-test-model identification (Al-Kaabi
and Lee 1993), and estimation of tight-gas-sand permeability
(Garrouch and Smaoui 1998). Applications of ANN technology
to PVT modeling include prediction of oil bubblepoint pressure
and formation-volume factor (Gharbi and Elsharkawy 1997;
Osman et al. 2001; Al-Marhoun and Osman 2002) and estimation
of oil viscosity at pressures below bubblepoint (Ayoub et al.
2007). Varotsis et al. (1999) developed an ANN-based method to
predict properties as a function of pressure, for oils and gas
condensates. These ANN-PVT applications all require as input
laboratory-measured property values, such as saturation pressure,
stock-tank-oil API gravity, and gas gravity.
An ANN can be thought of as a computing system comprising
many interconnected neuron-like processing units. The network of
simple processing elements (neurons) can exhibit complex global
behavior, determined by the connections between the neurons and
the neuron parameters. A typical two-hidden-layer ANN structure
is illustrated in Fig. 1. In more-practical terms, an ANN is a

Fig. 1—A typical two-hidden-layer neural-network structure
(Varotsis et al. 1999).
nonlinear statistical data modeling tool. There are many types of
ANN models, and a variety of learning techniques can be used to
train the network (Haykin 1999; Mohaghegh 2000).
There are several attributes of ANN models that make them
well-suited to DFA applications. First, an ANN learns the behav-
ior of a database population by self-tuning its parameters. Second,
if the database is sufficiently descriptive, the ANN provides a
rapid and accurate prediction as soon as a new case is applied that
has not been “seen” by the model during the training phase. Third,
an ANN can discover patterns in data that may not be perceptible
to normal observation and standard statistical methods. Fourth, the
ANN models can be constantly improved by retraining them using
larger databases (Varotsis et al. 1999).
ANN models, as opposed to EOS models, are simultaneously
trained off-line against all the fluids data contained in the data-
base, thus becoming “expert” in the entire compositional-mapping
process. Overfitting, which implies insufficient generalization
capabilities of the ANN, can lead to large prediction errors when
new data that lie in sparsely populated areas of the training popu-
lation are presented to the ANN model. Gaganis and Varotsis
(2005) showed that overfitting occurs when the developed ANN
displays nonphysically-sound derivative values (i.e., dpb/dT < 0),
and they proved that overfitting could be avoided by introducing
information on the model derivatives during training.
Example Application of ANN Technology to DFA
The application of ANN technology to DFA will be demonstrated
with an example. In this example, the objective is to predict GOR
using as input the fluid composition from a DFA tool that can
provide a five-component composition (Dong et al. 2007). The five
components comprise four hydrocarbon groups (C1, C2, C3–C5, and
C6+) and CO2. The DFA tool provides these components on a mass-
fraction basis. The development of the ANN comprises four steps.
Database Construction. The first step is to construct a database
containing the PVT data from laboratory measurements of rep-
resentative reservoir fluids. In this example, we have used a
database that contains laboratory-measured PVT data of approxi-
mately 650 reservoir fluids from around the world. In addition,
the database has been enriched with “derivative” fluids from inter-
mediate steps of the differential-vaporization studies (for oils)
and depletion studies (for gas condensates) performed in the
laboratory. The database contains 1,834 discrete samples.
These data cover a wide range of fluid types and compositions
as well as reservoir operating conditions, with approximately
two-thirds of the data sets representing reservoir oils and one-third
of the data sets from gas-condensate fluids. Although each
PVT property in this database varies in a large range, the data
population is not uniformly distributed—it is biased toward low-
volatility oils and gas condensates of low liquid yield. For each
fluid sample, the detailed laboratory composition data were
February 2009 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
regrouped into the same five component groups as provided by
the DFA tool, and the resulting mass fractions were normalized to
1.0 (thus excluding any impurities such as nitrogen and hydrogen
sulfide that cannot be measured by the DFA tool).
ANN-Model Selection. The second step is to select the type
of network. In this example, a feedforward-multilayer-perceptron
(FF-MLP) ANN model is selected. The FF-MLP relates an
m-dimensional input vector x to an n-dimensional output vector y by
y ¼ sfWL  s½WL1  sð. . . sðW0 x þ b0 ÞÞ þ bL1  þ bL g: . . . (1)
Here, L is the number of hidden layers, WL is a matrix of weights
for layer L, and bL is a vector of biases for layer L. It has been
proved that a single hidden layer with a sufficient number of
nodes in the hidden layer is capable of approximating any contin-
uous, differentiable function (Hornik et al. 1989). Therefore, with
L = 1, the ANN function can be simplified to
y ¼ s½W1  sðW0 x þ b0 Þ þ b1 : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)
The function s(x) used in Eqs. 1 and 2 is called the “activation
function,” and it is defined by
2 3
s^ðx1 Þ
6 7
sðxÞ ¼ 4 ... 5: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)
s^ðxm Þ
For s^ðxi Þ we used the sigmoid function given by
1
^
sðxi Þ ¼ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4)
1 þ expðxi Þ
for i = 1, m. The ANN described by Eqs. 2 through 4 can be thought
of as a function that applies two linear operations and two nonlinear
operations on the input vector to obtain the output vector.
Data Transformations. To avoid numerical difficulties, the
ANN inputs are normalized in the [0, 1] range using
xi  ðxi Þmin
x~i ¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5)
ðxi Þmax  ðxi Þmin
Here, (xi)min is the minimum value of input xi in the database and
(xi)max is the maximum value of input xi in the database. The ANN
output y (GOR) spans a large range; therefore it is replaced by its
natural logarithm. Furthermore, the GOR logarithms are normal-
ized in the [0.1, 0.9] range to ensure that the output lies within the
[0, 1] range of the sigmoid function. Thus, the transformed ANN
output is given by
 
lnðyÞ  lnðymin Þ
y~ ¼ 0:8 þ 0:1; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6)
lnðymax Þ  lnðymin Þ
where ymin is the minimum value of GOR in the database and ymax
is the maximum value of GOR in the database. Therefore, the
ANN function can be written as
y~ ¼ s½W1  sðW0 x~ þ b0 Þ þ b1 : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7)
For the GOR ANN of this example, the input vector x has dimen-
sion m = 5 (mass fractions of C1, C2, C3–C5, C6+, and CO2), and
the output vector y has dimension n = 1 (GOR). The transformed
vectors x~ and y~ also have dimensions 5 and 1, respectively. The
single hidden layer has 12 nodes, so matrix W0 has dimension
125, and vector b0 has dimension 12. Matrix W1 has dimension
112, and vector b1 has dimension 1.
Note that given the data transformations in Eqs. 5 and 6, the
ANN-predicted GOR, R, is computed from the ANN predicted y~
with
 
ðy~  0:1Þ½lnðymax Þ  lnðymin Þ
R ¼ exp þ lnðymin Þ : . . . . (8)
0:8
9

ANN-Model Training. The third step is to train the ANN model
against the database. The objective of the training is for the network
to learn the underlying behavior of the training data set. There are
numerous algorithms available for training neural-network models.
During the training phase, the ANN determines the weighting values
W and the bias values b to quantify the relationships between input
values x and corresponding output values y.
In this GOR ANN example, 80% of the 1,834 points available
from the PVT database were selected at random for training, 10%
were chosen as the calibration set, and the remaining 10% were
used for validation of the model. Furthermore, to avoid any even-
tual overfitting, the training algorithm was developed to minimize
not only the GOR-training error but also the differences between
the ANN-model derivatives and physically sound GOR deriva-
tives with respect to mass composition (Gaganis and Varotsis
2005). The backpropagation method with a batch-learning
paradigm, in which optimization is carried out with respect to
the entire training set simultaneously, was used. In addition, the
Broyden-Fletcher-Goldfarb-Shanno algorithm (Nocedal and
Wright 1999) was chosen for the optimization step.
During the training phase, the objective is to minimize the
error between the ANN model and the training set (i.e., 80% of
the database). The purpose of the calibration set (i.e., 10% of the
database) is to monitor the error independently during training,
thereby serving as a cross-validation. This allows an early-
stopping technique to be used—the training is terminated when
the error for the calibration set stops decreasing, even if the error
for the training set itself is still decreasing. We can say that during
training, the training set is directly seen by the ANN model, and
the calibration set is indirectly seen. Thus, 90% of the database
participates in the training, while the remaining 10%, the vali-
dation set, is unseen by the ANN during training.
Model Evaluation. The fourth and final step is to evaluate the
ANN model. This is done by checking the performance of the
trained ANN against the unseen validation set. The results are
presented in Table 1. (The statistical terms are defined in the
Appendix.) The ANN model performs almost identically against
both the training and validation data, indicating the robustness of
the model. Note that although, for example, the mean relative
error for the validation set is 1.5% larger than that for the training
10
Fig. 2—Comparison of ANN GOR model against PVT database.
data, it is normal to have the validation error statistics slightly
larger because that set is relatively small in size and the database
inevitably contains some noise. However, all differences in
Table 1 are considered to be well within an acceptable range.
Even at 3.0% mean relative error for the validation set, this indi-
cates only a small error for a model that predicts GOR covering a
range of 10 scf/STB to more than 100,000 scf/STB.
For an additional evaluation of the GOR ANN model, we
compared its performance with two other models: (1) the algo-
rithm for the DFA tool described by Fujisawa et al. (2002), which
is a four-component model (C1, C2–C5, C6+, CO2); and (2) the
algorithm for the DFA tool described by Dong et al. (2007),
which, like the ANN, is a five-component model. Also note that
in contrast to the ANN model, which was trained with 90% of the
1,834-point database, the DFA-tool algorithms had never seen the
database. A statistical summary of the performance evaluation is
given in Table 2. The validation set are the only data unseen by
all three models; the comparison of the results for this set is shown
in the last row of the table. These results show the improved
performance of the ANN model in comparison to the DFA-tool
algorithms. Fig. 2 shows the predicted vs. laboratory GOR values
for the ANN model, and Fig. 3 displays the relative error for the
ANN model. Corresponding graphs for DFA Tool 1 are presented
in Figs. 4 and 5, respectively, and for DFA Tool 2 in Figs. 6
and 7, respectively. In summary, the ANN model performed con-
sistently well throughout the GOR range, while the other two
models showed larger errors at low-GOR and high-GOR values,
with a majority of the errors being negative.
As we previously described, the ANN model was trained and
validated against a worldwide database. For an additional check of
the model, we examined its performance against data subsets for
the various main geographic regions represented in the database,
such as the North Sea, Middle East, and Gulf of Mexico regions.
We observed that the ANN GOR model errors showed no regional
dependency. To verify this observation further, we collected addi-
tional PVT laboratory reports for formation-fluid samples and
tested the model. For example, we collected 453 reports for sam-
ples from the Gulf of Mexico region. The performance of the
ANN GOR model against this completely unseen data is presented
in Fig. 8. The results are consistent with the model performance
against the worldwide database (Fig. 2).
February 2009 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

Fig. 3—Distribution of relative error for ANN GOR model
against PVT database.
Uncertainty Estimation
For the ANN model, and any other model, it is important to assess
the quality and confidence of the predicted outputs. For a model
displaying normal distribution of its errors, the uncertainty of its
output given the uncertainty of its inputs is computed with
X m  
@y 2 2
s2 ¼ s2y þ sxi : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (9)
i¼1
@xi
Here, s is the total uncertainty (standard deviation) of the output
and sy is the uncertainty (standard deviation) of the model itself—
that is, the uncertainty of the model even if all inputs contain no
error. The summation term corresponds to the effect of the uncer-
tainty of each input; @y/@xi is the partial derivative of the ANN-
model output (GOR) with respect to its input xi (mass fraction)
and sxi is the estimated standard deviation of the input xi (mass
fraction). Eq. 9 indicates that the inputs with large derivative and/
or large measurement error have the most important effect on the
uncertainty of the predicted output. Note that the partial derivative
in Eq. 9 can be computed analytically (by taking the derivative of
Eq. 7), or computed numerically with a finite-difference formula.
The confidence interval for the predicted GOR can be esti-
mated from the uncertainty value given by Eq. 9. For example,
the probability is 68% that the true GOR value lies in the range
½y  m  s; y  m þ s; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (10)
where y is the predicted GOR value and m is the mean error of the
model (i.e., the model bias). The probability increases to 95% that
the true GOR value lies in the range
½y  m  2s; y  m þ 2s: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (11)
Varotsis et al. (2002) discuss other quality-assurance methods that
can be applied to ANN prediction models.
Fig. 5—Distribution of relative error for DFA-Tool-1 (four-
component composition) GOR model against PVT database.
February 2009 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
Fig. 4—Comparison of DFA-Tool-1 (four-component composi-
tion) GOR model against PVT database.
Conclusions
ANN technology can be applied to formation-tester DFA measure-
ments, and the resulting ANN model can provide accurate predic-
tions of PVT properties. We have demonstrated the process with
an example—the prediction of GOR using input of fluid composi-
tion from a DFA tool. We have also discussed the estimation of
uncertainty of the predictions. Perhaps the most important aspect
of the development of the ANN is that the database against which
it is trained be representative of the expected operating conditions.
The example in this paper refers to a DFA formation-tester
tool that uses optical spectroscopy to determine fluid composition;
however, the application of ANN to DFA is completely general.
That is, ANN technology can be used to model the relationship
between other DFA input(s) and other desired output(s). For
example, an ANN could be developed to use input from a DFA
tool that measures density or a DFA tool that measures detailed
fluid composition with gas chromatography or mass spectroscopy.
ANN outputs could include stock-tank-oil density, formation-
volume factor, and properties as a function of pressure and/or
temperature. An ANN could also be used as a quality-assurance
tool—to assess the overall consistency of the measurements from
one or more DFA tools and to assess the quality and confidence of
the predicted PVT outputs.
Nomenclature
b = vector of bias values
m = dimension of input vector
n = dimension of output vector
N = number of values
pb = bubblepoint pressure
R = gas/oil ratio, scf/STB
s = activation function defined by Eq. 3
s^ = logistic function defined by Eq. 4
T = temperature
W = matrix of weights
Fig. 6—Comparison of DFA-Tool-2 (five-component compo-
sition) GOR model against PVT database.
11
Fig. 7—Distribution of relative error for DFA-Tool-2 (five-
component composition) GOR model against PVT database. Fig. 8—Validation of ANN GOR showing performance against
an “unseen” database from the Gulf of Mexico region.
x = input vector
x~ = normalized input vector
y = output vector Dong, C., Hegeman, P.S., Carnegie, A., and Elshahawi, H. 2006. Downhole
y~ = transformed output vector Measurement of Methane and GOR Content in Formation Fluid Samples.
SPEREE 9 (1): 7–14. SPE-81481-PA. DOI: 10.2118/81481-PA.
Z = dependent variable or property value
Dong, C., O’Keefe, M., Elshahawi, H., Hashem, M., Williams, S.,
Z = mean value of Z
Stensland, D., Norge, E. et al. 2007. New Downhole Fluid Analyzer
m = mean error (model bias) Tool for Improved Reservoir Characterization. Paper SPE 108566 pre-
s = standard deviation sented at Offshore Europe, Aberdeen, 4–7 September. DOI: 10.2118/
s2 = variance 108566-MS.
Elshahawi, H., Hashem, M., Dong, C., Hegeman, P., Mullins, O.C.,
Subscripts Fujisawa, G., and Betancourt, S. 2004. In-situ Characterization of
calc = calculated by model Formation Fluid Samples—Case Studies. Paper SPE 90932 presented
i = index (of input vector) at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston,
j = index (of dependent variable) 26–29 September. DOI: 10.2118/90932-MS.
L = number of hidden layers Fujisawa, G., Betancourt, S.S., Mullins, O.C., Torgersen, T., O’Keefe, M.,
max = maximum Terabayashi, T., Dong, C., and Eriksen, K.O. 2008. Hydrocarbon
meas = measured Compositional Gradient Revealed by In-Situ Optical Spectroscopy.
min = minimum SPEREE 11 (2): 233–237. SPE-89704-PA. DOI: 10.2118/89704-PA.
Fujisawa, G., van Agthoven, M.A., Jenet, F., Rabbito, P., and Mullins, O.C.
y = model
2002. Near-Infrared Compositional Analysis of Gas and Condensate
Reservoir Fluids at Elevated Pressures and Temperatures. Applied Spec-
Acknowledgments troscopy 56 (12): 1615–1620. DOI: 10.1366/000370202321116101.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of our Schlum- Gaganis, V. and Varotsis, N. 2005. Sensitivity Controlled Neural
berger colleagues Charles Woodburn, Graham Birkett, and Dave Networks for the Prediction of Thermodynamic Properties of Fluids.
MacWilliam. Paper presented at the IC-EpsMso, Athens, 6–9 July.
Garrouch, A. and Smaoui, N.H. 1998. An Artificial Neural Network
References Model for Estimating Tight Gas Sand Permeability. Paper SPE 39703
Al-Kaabi, A.U. and Lee, W.J. 1993. Using Artificial Neural Networks To presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Conference on Integrated Modelling
Identify the Well Test Interpretation Model. SPEFE 8 (3): 233–240; for Asset Management, Kuala Lumpur, 23–24 March. DOI: 10.2118/
Trans, AIME, 295. SPE-20332-PA. DOI: 10.2118/20332-PA. 39703-MS.
Al-Marhoun, M.A. and Osman, E.A. 2002. Using Artificial Neural Net- Gharbi, R.B. and Elsharkawy, A.M. 1997. Universal Neural Network Based
works to Develop New PVT Correlations for Saudi Crude Oils. Paper Model for Estimating the PVT Properties of Crude Oil Systems. Paper
SPE 78592 presented at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhi- SPE 38099 presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference
bition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 13–16 October. DOI: and Exhibition, Kuala Lumpur, 14–16 April. DOI: 10.2118/38099-MS.
10.2118/78592-MS. Haykin, S. 1999. Neural Networks, a Comprehensive Foundation. Upper
Ayoub, M.A., Raja, D.M., and Al-Marhoun, M.A. 2007. Evaluation Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
of Below Bubble Point Viscosity Correlations and Construction of Hornik, K., Stinchcombe, M., and White, H. 1989. Multilayer Feed-
a New Neural Network Model. Paper SPE 108439 presented at forward Neural Networks are Universal Approximators. Neural
the Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Jakarta, Networks 2 (5): 359–366. DOI:10.1016/0893-6080(89)90020-8.
30 October–1 November. DOI: 10.2118/108439-MS. Mohaghegh, S. 2000. Virtual-Intelligence Applications in Petroleum
Betancourt, S.S., Fujisawa, G., Mullins, O.C., Eriksen, K.O., Dong, C., Engineering: Part 1—Neural Networks. JPT 52 (9): 64–73. SPE-
Pop, J., and Carnegie, A. 2004. Exploration Applications of Downhole 58046-PA. DOI: 10.2118/58046-PA.
Measurement of Crude Oil Composition and Fluorescence. Paper SPE Mullins, O.C., Schroer, J., and Beck, G.F. 2000. Real-time quantification
87011 presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Conference on Integrated of OBM filtrate contamination during open hole wireline sampling by
Modelling for Asset Management, Kuala Lumpur, 29–30 March. optical spectroscopy. Trans., SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium,
DOI: 10.2118/87011-MS. Dallas, 4–7 June, Paper SS, 1–10.
Dashevskiy, D., Dubinsky, V., and Macpherson, J.D. 1999. Application of Nocedal, J. and Wright, S.J. 1999. Numerical Optimization. New York
Neural Networks for Predictive Control in Drilling Dynamics. Paper City: Springer.
SPE 56442 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and O’Keefe, M., Eriksen, K.O., Williams, S., Stensland, D., and Vasques, R.
Exhibition, Houston, 3–6 October. DOI: 10.2118/56442-MS. 2008. Focused Sampling of Reservoir Fluids Achieves Undetectable
Del Campo, C., Dong, C., Vasques, R., Hegeman, P., and Yamate, T. Levels of Contamination. SPEREE 11 (2): 205–218. SPE-101084-PA.
2006. Advances in Fluid Sampling With Formation Testers for Off- DOI: 10.2118/101084-PA.
shore Exploration. Paper OTC 18201 presented at the Offshore Tech- Osman, E.A., Abdel-Wahhab, O.A., and Al-Marhoun, M.A. 2001. Predic-
nology Conference, Houston, 1–4 May. tion of Oil PVT Properties Using Neural Networks. Paper SPE 68233

12 February 2009 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

 presented at the SPE Middle East Oil Show, Bahrain, 17–20 March. and
DOI: 10.2118/68233-MS.
Smits, A.R., Fincher, D.V., Nishida, K., Mullins, O.C., Schroeder, R.J., Mean absolute relative error

N ðZ
1X
and Yamate, T. 1995. In-Situ Optical Fluid Analysis as an Aid to
calc Þj  ðZmeas Þj : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-6)
Wireline Formation Sampling. SPEFE 10 (2): 91–98. SPE-26496-PA. ¼
DOI: 10.2118/26496-PA. N j¼1 ðZmeas Þj
Varotsis, N., Gaganis, V., and Nighswander, J. 2002. Quality Assurance
Tool for PVT Simulator Predictions. SPEREE 5 (6): 499–506. SPE-
81751-PA. DOI: 10.2118/81751-PA.
Varotsis, N., Gaganis, V., Nighswander, J., and Guieze, P. 1999. A Novel
SI Metric Conversion Factors
Non-Iterative Method for the Prediction of the PVT Behavior of bbl  1.589 873 E–01 = m3
Reservoir Fluids. Paper SPE 56745 presented at the SPE Annual Tech- ft3  2.831 685 E–02 = m3
nical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 3–6 October. DOI:
10.2118/56745-MS.
Peter Hegeman is a project manager and engineering advisor
in the reservoir sampling and pressure discipline of the Schlum-
Appendix—Definition of Statistical Terms berger Sugar Land Product Center. His interests include well
Letting Z represent a dependent variable or property value, and N testing, pressure-transient analysis, formation testing, and pro-
duction systems analysis. Hegeman holds BS and MS degrees
represent the number of values or observations, then we can in petroleum engineering from Pennsylvania State University.
define the following general statistical properties: Chengli Dong is a principal reservoir engineer with Schlumber-
ger in both Sugar Land Product Center and North Gulf
1X N
Mean; Z ¼ Zj ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-1) Coast. He is very active in DFA, formation testing, and sam-
N j¼1 pling, and development and applications of new formation
tester tools and answer products. Dong holds a BS degree in
and chemistry from Peking University and a PhD degree in petro-
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi leum engineering from the University of Texas at Austin.
uP Nikos Varotsis holds a diploma in chemical engineering
uN 2
u ðZj  ZÞ from the Technical University of Athens and MEng and
tj¼1 PhD degrees in petroleum engineering from Heriot-Watt
Standard deviation ¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-2)
N1 University, Scotland. He served as PVT and fluid analysis
R&D Head for Schlumberger in Paris. Varotsis is currently pro-
We can also define the following terms related to the error (differ- fessor of reservoir engineering at the Technical University
ence) between calculated and measured values: of Crete, Greece. His research interests include phase behav-
ior, PVT, and physical properties of petroleum fluids,
1X N
hydrate thermodynamics, and dissociation kinetics. Vassilis
Mean error ¼ ðZcalc Þj  ðZmeas Þj ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-3) Gaganis holds MS and PhD degrees from the Technical Univer-
N j¼1
sity of Crete, Chania, Greece (1996 and 2006, respectively).
Zcalc  Zmeas Currently he is a researcher at the department of mechanical
Relative error ¼ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-4) resources engineering, Technical University of Crete. His re-
Zmeas search interests involve data mining and modeling techniques
1X N ðZ
calc Þj  ðZmeas Þj for treating mineral resources engineering problems such as
Mean relative error ¼ ; . . . . . . . (A-5) petroleum phase behavior and chemometrics.
N j¼1 ðZmeas Þj

February 2009 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 13