Figure 1
Typical real-time measurement devices installed in upstream production well.
Figure 2
MPM (now TechnipFMC™) Multiphase Flow Meter.
Table 1
Pilot Experiment Parameters.
| Parameter | Detail |
|---|---|
| Producing Wells | Well 101 and Well 102 |
| Well-testing equipment | Shared MPFM |
| Flow type | Multiphase (3 phases) |
| Training data | 6 weeks multi-rate well-tests |
| Online test duration | 6 months |
| Measurements | Downhole P/T, Upstream P/T, downstream P/T, Choke opening |
| Data source | OSIsoft PI |
Figure 3
Well 101 and 102 is diverted manually through a common Multiphase Flow Meter (MPFM).
Table 2
Format for well test report to be for both training and testing dataset.
| INPUT | OUTPUT | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date/Time | Well No | Flowing tubing head pressure (FTHP), psi | Flowing tubing head temperature (FTHT), °C | Differential pressure across the well (dPWell), psi | Differential temperature across the well (dTWell), °C | Choke opening (CV), % | Differential pressure across the choke (dPChoke) | Differential temperature across the choke (dTChoke) | Oil Flow Rate (bbl/day) | Gas Flow Rate (MMscf/day) | Water Flow Rate (bbl/day) |
| DD:MM:YYYY HH:MM:SS | 101 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| DD:MM:YYYY HH:MM:SS | 102 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| DD:MM:YYYY HH:MM:SS | 101 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| DD:MM:YYYY HH:MM:SS | 102 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Figure 4
Overall Virtual Flow Meter architecture incorporating the combiner.
Figure 5
Illustration of bias-variance trade-off.
Figure 6
Data-driven VFM based on ensemble learning.
Figure 7
3 Distinct models were developed namely subsurface model, surface model and complete model.
Table 3
Data-driven model category with the associated inputs and outputs for each well.
| Well | Model Category | Inputs | Output | Algorithm |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 101 | full | CV, FTHP, FTHT, dPWell, dTWell, dPChoke, dTChoke | Qgas | AdaBoost |
| Qoil | RandomForest | |||
| Qwater | AdaBoost | |||
| surface | CV, FTHP, FTHT, dPChoke, dTChoke | Qgas | RandomForest | |
| Qoil | RandomForest | |||
| Qwater | AdaBoost | |||
| subsurface | FTHP, FTHT, dPWell, dTWell | Qgas | AdaBoost | |
| Qoil | RandomForest | |||
| 102 | full | CV, FTHP, FTHT, dPWell, dTWell, dPChoke, dTChoke | Qgas | Bagging |
| Qoil | RandomForest | |||
| Qwater | AdaBoost | |||
| surface | CV, FTHP, FTHT, dPChoke, dTChoke | Qgas | AdaBoost | |
| Qoil | RandomForest | |||
| Qwater | AdaBoost | |||
| subsurface | FTHP, FTHT, dPWell, dTWell | Qgas | RandomForest | |
| Qoil | AdaBoost | |||
| Qwater | Bagging |
Figure 8
Fluid characterization in Multiflash®.
Figure 9
Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR) and Vertical Lift Performance (VLP) (Fetoui, [Online]).
Figure 10
Inflow Performance Model (IPR) provide relationship between well flowing bottom-hole pressure, Pwf as a function of production rate, BPD.
Figure 11
The intersection of the IPR with the VLP, called the operating point, yields the well deliverability.
Figure 12
Geothermal profile along the vertical well (depth), ft vs. Temperature ºF.
Figure 13
Initial calibration step in Flux Simulator.
Figure 14
Flux Simulator in autonomous optimization.
Figure 15
Combiner general workflow.
Figure 16
Detailed combiner algorithm.
Table 4
Tested combiner VFM.
| Well | Output | Hybrid-VFM | Input Estimators |
|---|---|---|---|
| 101 | Qgas | combiner-all | [full, surface, subsurface, TF] |
| combiner-dd | [full, surface, subsurface] | ||
| combiner-full | [full, TF] | ||
| combiner-surface | [surface, TF] | ||
| Qoil | combiner-all | [full, surface, subsurface, TF] | |
| combiner-dd | [full, surface, subsurface] | ||
| combiner-full | [full, TF] | ||
| combiner-surface | [surface, TF] | ||
| Qwater | combiner-all | [full, surface, TF] | |
| combiner-dd | [full, surface] | ||
| combiner-full | [full, TF] | ||
| combiner-surface | [surface, TF] | ||
| 102 | Qgas | combiner-all | [full, surface, subsurface, TF] |
| combiner-dd | [full, surface, subsurface] | ||
| combiner-full | [full, TF] | ||
| combiner-surface | [surface, TF] | ||
| Qoil | combiner-all | [full, surface, subsurface, TF] | |
| combiner-dd | [full, surface, subsurface] | ||
| combiner-full | [full, TF] | ||
| combiner-surface | [surface, TF] | ||
| Qwater | combiner-all | [full, surface, subsurface, TF] | |
| combiner-dd | [full, surface, subsurface] | ||
| combiner-full | [full, TF] | ||
| combiner-surface | [surface, TF] |
Table 5
Combiner group description.
| Type | Description |
|---|---|
| combiner-all | Combining the three DD-VFM estimator categories and TF-VFM |
| combiner-dd | Combining the three DD-VFM estimator categories only |
| combiner-full | Combining the full-type DD-VFM estimator and TF-VFM |
| combiner-surface | Combining the surface-type DD-VFM estimator and TF-VFM |
Figure 17
Model performance evaluation metrics.
Table 6
MAPE performance summary for data-driven VFM estimators.
| DD-VFM | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Well | Output | Full | Surface | Subsurface | Combiner-dd |
| 101 | Qgas | 16.6 | 19.2 | 16.9 | 13.9 |
| Qoil | 9.7 | 10.0 | 15.7 | 9.8 | |
| 102 | Qgas | 6.0 | 9.5 | 10.2 | 7.7 |
| Qoil | 3.1 | 2.3 | 3.8 | 2.5 | |
Table 7
Flow rate deviation (delta Q) performance summary for data-driven VFM estimators.
| DD-VFM | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Well | Output | Full | Surface | Subsurface | Combiner |
| 101 | Qgas | 216 | 248 | 222 | 189 |
| Qoil | 242 | 263 | 377 | 248 | |
| Qwater | 0.5 | 0.3 | - | 0.2 | |
| 102 | Qgas | 68 | 135 | 106 | 90 |
| Qoil | 35 | 25 | 40 | 27 | |
| Qwater | 12 | 16 | 6 | 10 | |
Table 8
MAPE performance summary for all VFM.
| Hybrid VFM (combiner) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Well | Output | DD-VFM | TF-VFM | All | Full+TF | Surface+TF |
| 101 | Qgas | 16.6 | 9.6 | 11.8 | 9.0 | 8.7 |
| Qoil | 9.7 | 8.3 | 8.5 | 4.7 | 5.5 | |
| 102 | Qgas | 6.0 | 5.6 | 4.9 | 3.6 | 5.4 |
| Qoil | 3.1 | 17.5 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 1.3 | |
Table 9
Flow rate deviation (delta Q) performance for all VFM.
| Hybrid VFM (combiner) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Well | Output | DD-VFM | TF-VFM | All | Full+TF | Surface+TF |
| 101 | Qgas | 214 | 155 | 186 | 148 | 146 |
| Qoil | 278 | 221 | 220 | 126 | 146 | |
| Qwater | 0.2 | 15.4 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.7 | |
| 102 | Qgas | 83 | 85 | 77 | 54 | 87 |
| Qoil | 14 | 152 | 12.6 | 12 | 13 | |
| Qwater | 7 | 53 | 4 | 4 | 5 | |
Figure 18
Cumulative deviation for well 101 (a) Qgas and (b) Qoil.
Figure 19
Cumulative deviation for well 102 (a) Qgas and (b) Qoil.
Figure 20
Error bands for well 101 (a) for Qgas (b) for Qoil.
Figure 21
Error bands for well 102 (a) for Qgas, (b) for Qoil.
Figure 22
Flow rates with confidence intervals for well 101 (a) for Qgas, (b) for Qoil.
Figure 23
Flow rates with confidence intervals for well 102 (a) for Qgas, (b) for Qoil.
Figure 24
Flow rate with confidence interval for Qwater well 102.