EARLY ELECTRICAL SUBMERSIBLE PUMP FAILURE DETECTION USING

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE DEEP LEARNING LSTM

BACHELOR THESIS

Mohammad Fadillah
12218052

Submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING
in Petroleum Engineering study program

PETROLEUM ENGINEERING STUDY PROGRAM

FACULTY OF MINING AND PETROLEUM ENGINEERING
INSTITUT TEKNOLOGI BANDUNG
2022
EARLY ELECTRICAL SUBMERSIBLE PUMP FAILURE DETECTION USING
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE DEEP LEARNING LSTM

BACHELOR THESIS

Mohammad Fadillah
12218052

Submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING
in Petroleum Engineering study program

Approved by:
Thesis Adviser,
…………………………

Silvya Dewi Rahmwati, S.Si.,M.Si., Ph.D. Marda Vidrianto, S.T.,M.T.

NIP. 198402222014042001 PHE OSES

 EARLY ELECTRICAL SUBMERSIBLE PUMP FAILURE DETECTION USING
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE DEEP LEARNING LSTM

Mohammad Fadillah*, Silvya Dewi Rahmawati**, and Marda Vidrianto***

Copyright 2022, Institut Teknologi Bandung

Abstract
Electrical Submersible Pumps(ESP) are one of the industry's most common and cost-effective secondary
techniques. This technology can pump enormous volumes of fluid by decreasing the bottom hole pressure,
allowing oil to flow from the reservoir, and adding energy from the pump and electric motor to bring the fluid to
the surface. However, due to high gas volume, high temperature, and corrosive environments, ESP performance
frequently degrades and reaches the point of service interruption without much warning. Maintenance of ESP is
a highly capital-, resource- and labor-intensive task traditionally accomplished through reactive process
monitoring of multivariate sensor data. The financial impact of an interruption in ESP service is substantial due
to production losses and replacement costs. Consequently, developing technology capable of predicting ESP
failures is crucial for the oil industry.
This case study utilized downhole sensor ESP data in real-time to develop an analytical method for detecting ESP
failures. A slope-shaped classification will be performed on one-hour interval data for three-month (2,675 data)
forecasting performance. Utilizing Long-Short-Term Memory to Forecast Performance. Long Short-Term
Memory can model problems with multiple input parameters downhole sensor of ESP almost seamlessly.
However, LSTM is typically a time series problem in Machine Learning. The crucial difference between time
series and other machine learning problems is that the data samples in time series occur in a sequence. Therefore,
LSTM can classify sequential data, but the prediction failure ESP dataset is not sequential. For this case study,
classification using the Supervised Learning Technique was utilized (Decision Tree).
The downhole sensor ESP forecasting model using LSTM gets an average accuracy of over 90% and less than
10% errors. It makes prediction failure ESP gets for long until 5 days. The algorithms will be developed based on
nine statuses: closed valve, open choke, low PI, higher PI, increase in water, tubing leak, higher PI, increase in
frequency, and sand ingestion, with a 95% accuracy rate. Besides that, to be more accurate with field conditions,
this case study uses the latest matrix troubleshooting, which has 27 trips for failure prediction of ESP. Artificial
Intelligence can be utilized as an effective technology in monitoring ESP systems. A human operator must
constantly monitor these automation and control systems to ensure that all processes usually operate. In addition,
abnormal behavior is identified in advance, enabling operators to quickly determine the most appropriate
corrective action to avoid ESP failure based on the recommendations provided. Moreover, an oil company can
generate billions in revenue from ESP failure prevention measures carried out by engineers.
Keywords: ESP, LSTM, Artificial Intelligence, machine learning, forecasting, early failure prediction

Sari
Salah satu metode pengangkatan yang paling umum dan hemat biaya yang digunakan dalam industri adalah
Electrical Submersible Pump (ESP). ESP dapat memompa volume fluida yang sangat besar, dengan mengurangi
tekanan bottom hole yang memungkinkan minyak mengalir dari reservoir untuk menghasilkan fluida ke
permukaan. Namun, kinerja ESP dapat menurun tanpa adanya peringatan dan mencapai titik gangguan karena
faktor-faktor seperti volume gas yang tinggi, suhu tinggi, dan lingkungan yang korosif. Pemeliharaan ESP
membutuhkan modal yang tinggi, sumber daya, dan tenaga yang secara tradisional dilakukan dengan
pemantauan proses reaktif dari data sensor multivariat. Dampak finansial dari gangguan ESP cukup besar, baik
dari kehilangan produksi maupun biaya penggantian. Oleh karena itu, pengembangan teknologi forecasting
kegagalan ESP adalah salah satu tugas utama industri minyak.
Studi kasus ini menggunakan data real-time untuk membangun metodologi analisis untuk mendeteksi
kegagalan ESP. Klasifikasi akan dilakukan pada data interval satu jam untuk forecasting 3 bulan (2675 data),
yang telah dibentuk menjadi suatu pola. failure prediction menggunakan Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM).

1
LSTM hampir dapat dengan baik memodelkan masalah dengan beberapa parameter input sensor downhole ESP.
LSTM dalam meachine learning merupakan masalah deret waktu. Dibandingkan dengan Meachine Learning
lainnya,Perbedaan penting dalam deret waktu adalah bahwa sampel data yang digunakan secara berurutan.
Kemudian, LSTM dapat digunakan untuk klasifikasi data sekuensial, tetapi dataset ESP failure prediction
bukanlah tipe data sekuensial. Oleh karena itu klasifikas studi kasus menggunakan Supervised Learning; Logistic
Regression, Decision Trees, dan K-Nearest Neighbors.
Model prediction downhole sensor ESP menggunakan LSTM memperoleh akurasi lebih dari 90% dan galat yang
dihasilkan kurang dari 5%. Hal ini membuat prediksi kegagalan ESP berlangsung hingga 3-5 hari. Model
dibangun berdasarkan karakteristik masing-masing parameter yang berbeda dari sembilan status yang terdiri
dari; closed valve, open choke, low PI, higher PI, increase in water, tubing leak, higher PI, increase in frequency,
and sand ingestion dengan tingkat akurasi lebih dari 95%. Selain itu, agar lebih akurat dengan kondisi lapangan,
studi kasus ini menggunakan matriks terbaru yang memiliki 27 trip untuk prediksi kegagalan ESP. Kecerdasan
Buatan dapat dimanfaatkan sebagai teknologi yang efektif dalam monitoring sistem ESP. Sistem otomatisasi dan
kontrol ini memerlukan pengawasan konstan oleh operator untuk memverifikasi semua proses berjalan normal.
Selanjutnya, kondisi abnormal diidentifikasi terlebih dahulu, dan operator dapat secara dini menentukan
tindakan terbaik untuk menghindari kegagalan ESP yang dibangun berdasarkan rekomendasi yang dilampirkan.
Selain itu, perusahaan minyak dapat menghasilkan miliaran pendapatan dari tindakan pencegahan kegagalan
ESP yang dilakukan oleh Engineers.
Kata kunci: ESP, LSTM, kecerdasan buatan, machine learning, predksi kegagalan dini
*) Student of Petroleum Engineering Study Program, Institut Teknologi Bandung, 2018 batch
**) Thesis Adviser in Petroleum Engineering Study Program, Institut Teknologi Bandung
***) Thesis Adviser from Pertamina Hulu Energi Offshore Southeast Sumatra
temperature, and vibration. These data can be used as
1. Introduction
indicators of the existence of specific problems inside
1.1. Background the well, which can be seen from the changes in the
Using artificial lift systems, oil uplift to the surface is a value of the parameters (Santoso, Vidrianto, & Siagian,
critical stage in oil production. Among artificial lift 2020). Integrating the downhole sensor with a SCADA
options, ESPs are often considered efficient and (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) system
reliable for pumping high volumes from greater depths raises the level of monitoring. The technology has
and higher temperatures. However, ESPs represent provided a basic level of automated control in the oil
operators' significant CAPEX and OPEX cost items and gas industry for the past decade by continuously
(Matt Cumings, 2013). The Electrical Submersible monitoring well activity (Ratcliff, Gomez, &
Pump (ESP) is an artificial lift system with a high Madogwe, 2013). These real-time surveillance
production rate. New ESP installations are also costly systems, related services, and software helped gather
components of the artificial lift system. The critical numerous historical datasets and ever-increasing real-
feature of ESP, which explains its wide use in time data. However, these datasets have extremely
production, is its high efficiency at great depths in large volumes, are complex and misleading, and are
wells with complex spatial curvature, a wide range of challenging to analyze using simple visualization and
possible fluid flow rates, and ease of operation. dashboarding tools (Saputelli & Gupta, 2016).
The ESP's disadvantages are the equipment's Utilizing big data, a trend over the past decade, is the
complexity, and repair work cannot be done without solution to this issue. Accumulating data from years of
lifting the equipment. Furthermore, in case of any spreadsheet database archiving has made industries
breakdown to continue oil production, the equipment gather valuable patterns and work processes that led to
must be removed and replaced, which is costly in terms success stories (Waskito & Vidrianto, 2019). By
of time and costs. Therefore, one of the critical utilizing this data, industries have advanced in handling
parameters affecting the operational efficiency of oil their problems; avoid ESP shutdowns by moving from
production from ESP is the operating time of a supervised approach toward failure mitigation to a
equipment. It can be generally defined as the time in more practical approach based on early predictive
days from launch to failure required to be lifted to the analysis and prevention (Bayagub, 2021).
surface for replacement or repair. (Shabonas & This paper proposes an automated early predictive
Khabibullin, 2020) analysis built on a real-time dashboard to monitor and
ESP is equipped with a device fitted to the bottom part protect ESP operations by focusing on patterns that
of the ESP structure for monitoring the fluid lifting deviate from normal behavior expectations. Such a
condition. By equipping the sensor with a real-time system can maximize equipment availability, save
surveillance system, such as a lift watcher, the user can millions of dollars in maintenance and lost production,
read real-time data of parameters that can be retrieved and eliminate the need to deploy many field personnel
from the sensor reading, such as average amps, intake and instruments to monitor and investigate ESP
pressure, discharge pressure, intake temperature, motor operations (Gupta, Nikolaou, & Saputelli, 2016).

2
Furthermore, successful and implemented in the
production process, advances in predicting the
potential for ESP failure will increase the operating
time of ESPs by optimizing their operation mode or
conducting preventive geological and technological
measures and by minimizing production downtime due
to on-time logistics preparations for repairing well
stock (Shabonas & Khabibullin, 2020).
1.2. Objectives
The main objectives of this study are:
1. Predict the downhole parameters installed on the
Electric Submersible Pump (ESP) toward the
desired time using time-series analysis LSTM.
2. Estimate the virtual flow measurement for missing
well-test data values using LSTM and KNN
Regressor. Then, compare LSTM and KNN-
Regressor results for the prediction model.
3. Identify and compare the problem occurrence
pattern in the database of the machine learning
model with the most recent troubleshooting
matrix.
4. Create an algorithm to detect abnormal behavior
and take preventative action to prevent failure for
five days.
2. Basic Theory
2.1. Electric Submersible Pump
Installation and operation of electrical submersible
pumps (ESPs) are straightforward. They are able to
extract extremely large volumes of oil from highly
productive reservoirs. Crooked or deviated holes are
not problematic. ESPs can be utilized in offshore
operations. In general, lifting costs for large quantities
are quite low. ESP applications are limited by the need
for high-voltage electricity, inapplicability to multiple
completions, unsuitability for deep and high-
temperature oil reservoirs, difficult gas and solids
production, and expensive installation and
maintenance. ESP systems have greater horsepower,
operate in hotter environments, are used in dual
installations and as spare down-hole units, and include
oil/water separation down-hole. Sand and gas issues
have prompted the development of new products.
System automation includes monitoring, analysis, and
control (Guo, Lyons, & Ghalambor, 2007).
Figure 1 depicts the submersible pump system's
transformers, motor controllers, junction box,
wellhead, and downhole components: motor, seal,
pump, and cable. Vertically operating centrifugal
pumps with multiple stages are used for ESP
installations' submersible pumps. Although their
constructional and operational characteristics
underwent continuous evolution, their fundamental
operating principle remained the same. After being
subjected to large centrifugal forces caused by the high
rotational speed of the impeller, produced liquids lose
3
their kinetic energy in the diffuser, where kinetic
energy is converted to pressure energy (Takacs, 2018).
Each manufactured pump is assigned a performance
curve that quantifies the relationship between
horsepower, efficiency, and head about the operating
flow rate. The catalog performance curve specifies
each pump stage's recommended operating range. The
operator can determine when the ESP falls outside of
its guided range and then plan for resizing or replacing
the ESP to accommodate the actual flow rate (Bayagub,
2021).
2.1.1. Operation and Real-Time Monitoring
The ESP system's performance and expected runtime
are highly dependent on the system's proper operation.
Therefore, analyzing these parameters permits an
evaluation of the equipment's actual condition and
provides a method for anticipating potential issues.
Further, an increased level of monitoring comes by
connecting the downhole sensors to a SCADA
(Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) system
(Ratcliff, Gomez, & Madogwe, 2013). These systems
transmit the information to a centralized location for
remote monitoring of ESP and well behavior,
eliminating the need for dedicated field personnel to
monitor ESP operation continuously and requiring
their intervention only when notified of problems via
alarms generated by SCADA systems (Gupta,
Nikolaou, & Saputelli, 2016).
2.1.2. Surveillance and Failure Modes
Failures in ESP systems are typically electrical, as the
electrical system is frequently the weakest link.
However, the actual cause of these failures is a
different, generally mechanical, problem. For this
reason, each failure's root cause must be precisely
identified and analyzed. Consequently, failure analysis
is a valuable tool for extending the life of ESP
equipment (Takacs, 2018).
Once the operator determines that the downhole
equipment has "failed," a failure mode can be selected.
Typically, it results from an abnormal operating
condition identified by the operator via surface
instruments, a monitoring/control system, or a well
test. Typically, a pull is necessary to repair or replace
downhole equipment. Table 1 lists several potential
installation failure modes for ESP (Bayagub, 2021).
2.1.3. Downhole Sensor
The downhole sensor is positioned beneath the motor,
making it the most subterranean component of ESP.
Average amps, intake pressure, discharge pressure,
intake temperature, motor temperature, and vibration
are the parameters that the sensor can monitor. The data
is transmitted to the surface via the power cable and is
displayed on the motor controller. In addition, using a
real-time surveillance system, the user can access data
from the supervisory control and data acquisition
system (Santoso, Vidrianto, & Siagian, 2020).
2.1.4. Hagedorn and Brown Correlation
As fluid flows from the reservoir to the surface, it loses
pressure due to differences in altitude and friction. The
model of lift performance can therefore be used for
well diagnosis and optimization. A Vertical Lift
Performance (VLP) also includes a pressure and rate
curve that describes the well's lift performance.
Calculating pressure drop and production tubing for
different rates and wellhead conditions yield the
relationship. Several correlations were used to
calculate the pressure drop. Hagedorn and Brown are
one of the correlations commonly used for a vertical
well. (Hidayat, 2021)
The heart of the Hagedorn-Brown method is a
correlation for the liquid holdup; the modifications of
the original method include using the no-slip holdup
and Griffith correlation for the bubble regime
(Economide, Hill, & Ehlig-Economides, 1993).
2.2. Machine Learning
Machine learning is an artificial intelligence (AI)
application that enables systems to learn and improve
their models over time without reprogramming
automatically. The first step in the learning process is
to observe data to search for patterns to make future
decisions based on the data provided. Learning a
predictive model that maps specific inputs to the
desired output is supervised learning. Several
supervised machine learning algorithms are utilized in
this study. The selection of an algorithm is typically not
straightforward and frequently requires trial and error,
as each algorithm has its strengths and weaknesses.
Table 2 demonstrates some pros and cons of these
algorithms (Geron, 2018).
2.3. Deep Learning in Recurrent Neural Network
Deep learning is part of machine learning used to
model a high level of abstraction on data based on
algorithms using implementation layers and complex
structures or vice versa, consisting of several non-
linear transformations (Schmidhuber, 2014). In
addition, deep learning can extract patterns obtained
from data that help the model distinguish classes. This
feature also plays a role in achieving good prediction
results, called Feature Engineering. The development
of deep learning helps solve big data problems such as
Computer Vision, Speech recognition, and Natural
Language Processing.
Time series are analyzed to comprehend the past and
predict the future, enabling managers or policymakers
to make well-informed decisions (Nielsen, 2010).
RNNs are a type of neural network architecture
primarily employed to detect patterns in sequential data,
such as language or, in our case, numerical time series.
Information is passed through the network with cycles,
i.e., the data is transmitted back into the model to
identify sequential patterns in the data (Hochreiter &
Schmidhuber, 1997). Figure 2 shows RNN Cell.
4
2.3.1. Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM)
The LSTM cell makes long-term memory more
performant because it allows more parameters to be
learned. Therefore, LSTM makes it the most powerful
(Recurrent Neural Network) to do forecasting, especially
when you have a longer-term trend in your data.
Therefore, LSTMs are one of the state-of-the-art models
for forecasting at the moment. (Korstanje, 2021).
LSTM networks are a type of recurrent neural network
(RNN) created to address situations where RNNs failed.
RNNs operate on current inputs while considering
previous outputs (feedback) and retaining them in
memory for a brief time (short-term memory). To begin
with, it cannot retain data for an extended period. To
predict the current output, relying on information stored
long ago is frequently necessary. On the other hand,
RNNs cannot handle such "long-term dependencies."
(Hochreiter & Schmidhuber, 1997). Figure 3 shows
repeating models in LSTM. (Hyndman & B. Koehler,
2006)
2.3.1.1. Sigmoid
Sigmoid activations are present in gates. A sigmoid
activation is performed in a manner comparable to the
tanh activation. It compresses values between 0 and 1
rather than between -1 and 1. This is useful for updating
or erasing data because any number multiplied by 0 is
0, causing values to disappear or be "forgotten." Any
number multiplied by 1 has the same value; therefore,
this value is preserved or "kept." The network can
determine which data is unimportant, which data can
be discarded, and which data must be retained.
2.3.1.2. Forget gate
There is a gate to forget. This gate decides which data
should be kept and which should be discarded. The
sigmoid function transmits data from the previous
hidden state and the current input. The values range
from 0 to 1. The closer to 0 indicates forgetfulness,
whereas the closer to 1 indicates retention. Forget layer
as shown in Figure 4.
2.3.1.3. Input gate
The input gate is employed to alter the state of the cell.
The previous hidden state and the current input are
provided to a sigmoid function. This determines which
values will be updated by transforming them to the 0 to
1 range. 0 represents irrelevance, while 1 represents
significance. Moreover, pass the hidden state and
current input to the tanh function to help regulate the
network by squeezing values between -1 and 1 into the
range 0 to 1. The outputs of tanh and sigmoid are then
multiplied. The sigmoid outcome will determine which
information from the tanh output is sufficient to retain.
Input layer as shown in Figure 5.
2.3.1.4. Cell gate
Initial multiplication of the forget vector by the cell
state is performed pointwise. Cell gate can cause the
cell state to decrease if it is multiplied by values close
to zero. Then, take the output of the input gate and
perform a pointwise addition, thereby updating the cell
state with new values deemed relevant by the neural
network. Cell gate determines our new cellular
condition. The cell layer, as shown in Figure 6.
2.3.1.5. Output gate
Note that the hidden state contains previous input
information. Additionally, predictions are based on the
concealed state. The sigmoid function initially
provides the previous hidden state and the current
input. The altered state of the cell is then
communicated to the tanh function. Information
regarding the hidden state is determined by multiplying
the tanh output by the sigmoid output. The outcome is
the concealed condition. The new cell state and hidden
are then carried forward to the next time step. Output
gate, as shown in Figure 7.
2.3.2. Accuracy for Forecasting
It is essential to evaluate forecast accuracy using
genuine forecasts. Consequently, the size of the
residuals is not a reliable indication of how extensive
and accurate forecast errors are likely to be. The
accuracy of predictions can only be determined by
considering how well a model performs on new data
not used when fitting the model. The second criterion
is usually considered to classify forecasting accuracy
measures in the literature. (Hyndman & B. Koehler,
2006) identify forecasting results by measurements
based on percentage errors. (Chicco, Warrens, &
Jurman) R-squared is a more informative metric than
MAPE for estimating percentage errors.
2.3.2.1. Mean Absolute Percentage Error
For errors to be independent of scale, it is customary to
express error measures as percentages.:
𝑛 results will be concurrently compared with the original
1 𝑌𝑖 − 𝑋𝑖
𝑀𝐴𝑃𝐸 = ∑| |
𝑚 𝑌𝑖
𝑖=1
Table 3 demonstrates how to interpret MAPE during
model evaluation.
Another performance metric for regression models is
the MAPE, and its interpretation of relative error is
very intuitive. Due to its definition is recommended for
use in situations where sensitivity to close variations is
more important than sensitivity to unlimited variations.
(Myttenaere, Golden, & Rossi, 2016). However, it also
has some disadvantages. The most significant ones are
limiting its use to strictly positive data by definition and
being biased toward low forecasts, making it unsuitable
for predictive models where substantial errors are
anticipated. (Armstrong, 1986).
2.3.2.2. R Squared
The coefficient of determination can assume values in
the interval [-, 1] based on the relationship between the
ground truth and the prediction model. Following is a
summary of the significant cases we've encountered
(Chicco, Warrens, & Jurman).
∑𝑚
𝑖=1(𝑋𝑖 − 𝑌𝑖 )
2
𝑅2 = 1 − 𝑚
∑𝑖=1(𝑌𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 − 𝑌𝑖 )2
5
There are three categories of grouping on the R square
value, namely the strong category, the moderate
category, and the weak category. The R square value of
0.75 belongs to the strong category, the R square value
of 0.50 belongs to the moderate category, and the R
square value of 0.25 belongs to the weak category. R
squared can not only be used on regression but can also
use the R squared formula in all models to determine
whether or not a model is good.
3. Methodology
This study is conducted based on the workflow as
follows:
1. Data Acquisition
It retrieves data from the cloud system to serve as the
simulation database.
2. Forecasting model development, the selected
model for predicting sensor parameters is a time
series with the steps outlined below.:
• Filtering data within the desired time interval and
resampling the dataset to hourly intervals.
• Creating two types of datasets from the prepared
data: training and testing data sets.
• Selecting a model that fits the training dataset and
evaluating the model's performance on the testing
dataset.
• Forecasting the future by re-fitting the model to
the entire data set.
Parameters of Downhole Sensors Forecasting As a
form of justification to further analyse, forecasting
sensor data.
3. Classification Model Construction
Several wells' processed data will be classified utilizing
machine learning, which will then be followed by:
Calculate the flow rate value for every dataset using the
model supplied by the related company.
• Compare the result calculating the flow rate
between LSTM and KNN Regressor. Use the
most negligible error result compared to the two
methods.
• Analyst a machine learning model by comparing
the outcomes of multiple methods.
• Compare the result machine learning model with
the Update troubleshoot matrix failure.
4. Failure Prediction
The machine learning model generates a
prediction based on the predicted sensor data as
the new input based on five-day windows.
5. Prescription of Preventive Action Bringing out
the proactively suggest corrective action to
address the failure is developed.
The detailed workflow of this study is further described
in Figure 8.
4. Case Study
Several significant ESP operation-related parameters
were utilized as model input variables. These included
well inflow parameters like fluid pressure and
temperature at the pump intake, tubing pressure, flow
rate, and tubing diameter; pump performance
parameters like discharge pressure, pump setting depth,
stages, and pump type; and motor diagnostic
parameters like vibration and motor temperature.
(Faradila)
Two different data records were tagged for the study.
These are:
1. Data record containing time-series information of
various parameters on downhole gauges. The data
was recorded at a one-hour interval for one well.
2. Data records contain information on when a trip or
failure occurred in that well.
Those data come from seventeen wells equipped with
lift watchers provided by four types: RC1000, RC2500,
SN2600, and SN3600.
This record was utilized to analyze the behavior of
patterns based on the selected parameters obtained
from the historian before, during, and immediately
following the trip or failure event. (Gupta, Nikolaou, &
Saputelli, 2016).
4.1. Downhole Sensor Parameters Forecasting
This step aims to predict the downhole sensor
parameters, including motor temperature, current
consumption, motor vibrations, temperature, and
pressure for the intake and discharge sections of the
pump for the next five days.
Downhole sensor forecasting uses a multivariate time
series model of LSTM (Long-Short-Term-Memory)
analysis. Forecasting using LSTM is the situation in the
field where the downhole sensor data is interconnected
in predicting a downhole sensor parameter. Therefore,
LSTM is affected by a large amount of data available.
The historical data used in LSTM forecasting is
obtained from February 2019 to August 2020.
However, the large amount of data can cause noise in
the forecasting model because a data vacuum is not in
order with the time of the data history. Therefore, data
resampling was done for one hour from April 11, 2020,
02.10 PM to July 31, 2020, 00.00 PM. 2675 Data is the
result from resampled shown in Table 4. Then, the data
will be divided 80:20 into training and test datasets to
learn the relationship between independent variables
and the target variable in terms of a mathematical
function or set of rules. The result discharge pressure
of time interval and dataset can be seen in Figure 9.
The forecasting results will be integrated with the
original dataset appropriately.
4.2. Flow Rate Reconstruction
Flow rate is a factor that must be accounted for when
predicting ESP failure based on the readings of
downhole sensor parameters. Due to the limitations of
6
the performed well tests, the flow rate will be estimated
using the model supplied by the associated company.
The flow rate reconstruction requires static, profile, and
dynamic data, which can be continuous or time-series.
"Static" implies that there is no change in the data for
an extended period of time in the life of an ESP well,
barring special circumstances. In addition, it includes
information regarding pump installation and well
completion. While the report of dynamic data is natural
because it reflects the behavior of the well and pump
operation, which consists of:
• Surface Pressure Gauges Data: Casing pressure
and tubing pressure.
• Downhole Gauge Data: Pump discharge pressure,
pump intake pressure, ampere reading, and intake
temperature
The pre-processing of 121,462 raw is shown in Table
5. Data began with scaling all numerical features into
the range 0 to 1, followed by hyperparameter tuning to
determine the optimal model parameters
The LSTM model can perform regression in
determining virtual flow rates.121,462 pre-processing
data that has been scaling is first analyzed with EDA
(Exploratory Data Analysis) before being used in the
LSTM model for regression. EDA can help detect
errors, identify outliers in data sets and understand
relationships between data so that the raw data of the
EDA results becomes 6,071 data attached to Table 6.
In this case study, the virtual rate regression compared
the results obtained from LSTM and KNN-Regressor.
Use the KNN Regressor result from the last model
(Bayagub, 2021). The method with the smallest error
result is used in the classification model.
The k-nearest neighbor, a chosen model to regress the
virtual flow rates, is one of the algorithms that the
learning is based on "how similar" data from others and
goes together with a large amount of data. (Faradila).
4.3. Early ESP Failure Prediction
At this stage, the well-data-integration engine will
apply statistical techniques to all predictor values,
reducing noise and identifying patterns and
correlations between the variables.
The algorithm enables the development of an agreed-
upon, mathematically-verified pattern for all of the
prevalent ESP failures. For example, suppose the
current well data indicate a trend that matches the
pattern of a previous failure. In that case, the algorithm
generates an alarm for the specific issue and sends it to
the field technicians at any time of day.
For more be actual, it is equal to field condition in this
case study use the update matrix troubleshooting, there
are has 27 troubles shooting as shown in Table 7.
The technician can then highlight any underlying
causes that may have hindered ESP performance and
provide simultaneous evaluations for the remedial
course of action.
5. Result and Discussion
5.1 Forecasting Model Development
5.1.1 Define and Fit Model LSTM
The process begins with splitting the data at 80:20. The
training data was obtained after splitting as many as
2141 data from 16044. The abundance of data and
layers influences the LSTM model. The tuning done on
the LSTM is a hidden layer, learning rate, look_back,
num_epochs, and batch_size. The number of initially
hidden layers in the default LSTM template is 128 and
is usually changed with the 2n formula such as
32,64,512, 1024, etc. However, this model uses a
hidden layer of 256, as shown in Figure 10.
Learning rate is one of the training parameters to
calculate the weight correction value during the
training process. This learning rate value ranges from
zero (0) to (1). The greater the learning rate, the faster
the training process will run, and the network accuracy
will decrease. The learning rate used in the LSTM
model is ADAM (A Method of Stochastic
Optimization). ADAM can achieve excellent and fast
results because ADAM uses the first and second-
moment gradient estimates to adapt the learning rate
for each neural network weight.
Epochs represent the number of iterations that must be
performed on a dataset. Epochs signify a learning cycle
of deep learning algorithms from the entire training
dataset. One epoch means a deep learning algorithm is
known from the training dataset. The number of
Epochs depends on the number of datasets. But the
number of epochs used in this model is 50.
Batch size is the number of sample data deployed to the
Neural Network. For example, suppose we have 100
datasets, and our batch size is five. In that case, this
algorithm will use the first five slips of data (1st, 2nd,
3rd, 4th, and 5th) and then deploy or train by the Neural
Network until completion, then retrieve the second 5
data samples from 100 data (6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and the
10th), and so on until 5 data samples to 20 (1005=20).
This LSTM uses one batch size.
Early stopping in the LSTM model prevents overfitting
by stopping the model training. The patience argument
is another keyword that sets in the early stopping
callback. The default setting for patience is zero. The
training is terminated if the performance metric
declines from one epoch to the next. It may not be
optimal given that the model's performance is noisy
and fluctuates from epoch to epoch. The trend,
however, should be improving.
For this reason, I frequently set the patience to several
epochs, such as five epochs in this case. In this case,
the training will end if there is no improvement in the
monitor performance measure over the previous five
epochs. The parameter on the LSTM model used in
forecasting modeling is shown in the following Figure
11.
Furthermore, validating the selected LSTM model can
be visualized in Figure 12 from the resulting loss in e
7
on Discharge Pressure. The loss model visualizes the
difference in errors between test data and training data
where there are fewer errors between test data and
training data.
Furthermore, an accurate forecasting calculation is
carried out by calculating MAPE and R Squared. The
MAPE and R Squared results are selected as follows in
Table 8. Each MAPE and R Squared result is different
between one downhole sensor and another sensor
downhole. However, the yield of MAPE on each sensor
downhole is no more than 10%, whereas the LSTM
model is built on "highly accurate forecasting". Then
the results of R Squared were nothing negative and
close to 1, so the LSTM model showed a good
correlation between the six downhole sensors in
forecasting.
5.1.2 Evaluate and Entire Dataset
The LSTM model that has been built is the best result
obtained by tuning hidden layers, epoch, learning rate,
and batch_size. This study case initially wanted to
predict the failure in August 2020. However, in field
conditions at that time, there was no failure. Therefore,
the number of data sets initially up to August 1, 2020,
was changed to July 1, 2020. So, in this case, the LSTM
model that will be made will predict two times, namely
July and August.
The application of the LSTM model to the six
downhole ESP sensors that are fortified is the same, so
the discussion will focus on the Discharge Pressure
sensor. The resulting dataset of 10282 was originally
16044 data produced. The MAPE value on each model
is less than 10, but the R-Squared value is not close to
1. The result of the dataset change is in Figure 13. Then
the next step is to change the hidden layer, which was
initially 256 to 128 and 512. The result of the hidden
layer change is in Table 9. The table shows that the
value of the R Score is still minus this number of
hidden layers and does not significantly affect the
LSTM model. The best tuning results were obtained to
determine the month of July, namely data on April 20,
2020, 14.10 to July 1, 2020, 00.00 as many as 1715
datasets with 256 hidden layers. The LSTM model in
July can be seen in Figure 14 on July and obtained the
MAPE and R scores in Table 10.
The results shown in Table 11 of the LSTM model in
August with July obtained the model with the best
results, namely the LSTM model with data until August
because the amount of data used was more. Therefore,
when predicting the month of July using the model up
to the data of August. Fit model of the six downhole
sensors in Figure 15.
5.2 Downhole Sensor Forecasting
A fit LSTM model is used in forecasting downhole
sensors in predicting five days with a data interval of 1
hour. The downhole sensor validation is compared to
the original data, which predicts August 1, 2020, to
August 9, 2020. Each sensor in the TABLE had an
error of less than 10%. The amount of time is longer
than five days in terms of predictions and comparing
actual data because that LSTM can be long and very
suitable for forecasting, as evidenced by Table 12.
Downhole sensor parameters are interrelated in
forecasts. The prediction results can be seen in Figure
16.
Then in July, it is predicted that starting from June 28,
2020, 00.00 to July 3, 2020, 14.00 can correctly predict
the next five days. However, it differs from august
because there is a limit in the data used to determine
the error in the prediction results. The error results
obtained are as follows in Table 12.
5.3 Re-Construction Flow Rate Model
The LSTM model used in regression is almost the same
as forecasting. The data is divided into 12 input
variables: casing pressure, tubing pressure high, PBHP,
PBHT, ESP max, pump type, STG, HP, Volt, AMP,
PSD, tubing id, and BFPD data as output to be
regressed.
5.3.1 EDA (Exploratory Data Analysis)
Clustering K-Means are used in EDA by using the
orange application. The K-means clustering algorithm
groups data based on the distance between the data
against the centroid point of the cluster obtained
through an iterative process. The initial stage is
determined by the outlier ranking using the SVM one
class method with a nu parameter of 85% with a kernel
of 0.01.
5.3.2 Comparing LSTM Model and KNN-
Regressor
The LSTM model used in the regressor is 256 hidden
layers, epoch 50, with a validation split of 0.2,
obtaining a MAPE value of 4.32. MAPE results and
model validation loss can be seen in Figure 17 and
Figure 18. In addition, the blind data test was
conducted to validate the model's accuracy by
predicting additional well test data for 43 different
wells, with an average error of 12.7%, as shown in
Table 13. KNN Regressor resulted up to 99.59%
accuracy, which possibly overfits. The blind data test
was conducted to validate the model accuracy by
predicting another well test data with 43 various wells
resulting in a 5% error on the average, as pointed out in
Table 14 (Bayagub, 2021).
KNN-Regressor gets an error from blind test less than
more LSTM because the dataset isn't sequence data.
While in LSTM for sequential data. So raw data change
to be a sequential data format. So LSTM depends on
the dataset, but in LSTM, do EDA first. So it can
reduce a dataset from 121462 to 6071 data.
LSTM networks require significantly more training data
than KNN to achieve adequate accuracy, and LSTM
requires more hyperparameter tuning than KNN.
Therefore, the best model used in flowrate regression
is the KNN-Regressor The error percentage can still be
accepted. The model will be applied to the data
gathered in the preceding section to predict the virtual
rate.
8
Table 15 and Table 16 show the result of rate
reconstruction for each parameter value of the
downhole gauge. The predicted values were then
compared to the nearby flow rate derived from well test
data, which had a value of 278.66 for predict in August
and 291.92 for predict in July, which is very similar.
5.3.3 Pressure Drop Calculation: Hagedorn-brown
Correlation
The recommendation from the paper is to calculate the
pressure drop using correlation. The correlation chosen
is Hagedorn-brown for this case study. Pressure drops,
tubing diameter, and pump installation are the essential
components for rate calculation. Due to the limitations
of the conducted well test, however, the tubing pressure
will be estimated by converting the discharge pressure
from each sensor reading using the formula below.:
Hagedorn brown Correlation
𝑢2
𝑑𝑝 𝑓𝑚2 ∆( 2𝑔𝑚 )
𝑐
144 =𝑝+ +𝑝
𝑑𝑧 (7.413 𝑥 1010 𝐷5 )𝑝 ∆𝑧
𝑇𝑝 = 𝐷𝑝 − ∆𝑃
The data and assumptions used in calculating pressure
drop with Hagedorn-brown correlation are in.
However, casing pressure will be handled differently
by utilizing the same value as the nearby well test data.
This is due to the fact that the value of casing pressure
varies only slightly from well test to well test, ranging
from 5 to 10 psi.
There are differences in casing pressure data used in
the prediction model in July and August, as well as
pressure drop values because of differences in GOR
values.
Casing pressure for flowrate regression of the July
model uses the assumption of well-test casing pressure
on May 25, 2020, which is 50.02 psia, and the pressure
drop value of the Hagedorn-brown result is 3235.29
psia
The casing pressure for the regression of the august
model flowrate uses the assumption of well-test casing
pressure on July 18, 2020, which is 60.02 psia, and the
pressure drop value of the Hagedorn-brown result is
3311.4 psia. The approach took so that the results are
by the conditions of the field.
5.4. Classification Model Development
5.4.1. Machine Learning Method
A typical issue at this stage is that the prepared data
consists of multiple units for every real-time parameter
of the well. Table 18 depicts the percentage change
between the current and preceding elements, which
converted the data into a slope. In addition, each data
set must be labeled per the company's specifications,
detailed in e. The pattern recognition of the parameters
that led to these issues is described in
Table 20.
The dataset is split into training and test datasets around
a 75:25 ratio sampled across all the categories.
Machine learning could be chosen over the accuracy of
several results of the oversampled data. For example,
the model accuracy using logistics regression, random
forest, Support Vector Machine (SVM), K Nearest
Neighbor (KNN), and decision tree are 86.16%,
99.96%, 98.88%, 99.8%, and 99.85% (Bayagub,
2021).
5.4.2. Update Matrix Troubleshooting
The matrix update is considered a compliment and
validation of the completed machine learning model's
results. However, in the results generated by the latest
troubleshooting updating, a simple model is used as
"conditional". This is due to the limitations of the
LSTM model itself and requires further studies to
create a model from the troubleshooting matrix update.
5.4.3 Failure Prediction
The inputs result from downhole sensor parameters
forecasting with a constructed virtual rate under the
same format as the prepared data. Within a 5-days time,
those five machine learnings will run predictive
failures. For more detail, compare with the updated
troubleshooting matrix to make result predictions
various and near-real. The prediction results were then
compared to the related company's historical data to
meet the validation.
The machine learning model used in prediction is the
Decision Tree gets accuracy until 99.85%. Failure
prediction data is from August 1, 2020, 00.00 to August
5, 2020. The results obtained from Decision Tree are
that ESP does not experience troubleshooting. The
updated troubleshooting matrix's prediction results
showed the same thing: there was no problem with
ESP. The prediction results are shown on the sensor in
Figure 19 and Table 21.
The results of the failure prediction were carried out at
different times, namely in July. The data selected in
July begins on June 28, 2020, at 04:00, and ends on
July 3, 2020. The failure prediction results indicated
trip 1, or Low PI with a Decision Tree model. The
results of the updated troubleshooting matrix indicated
that the ESP had a low cooling motor. The prediction
results are shown on the sensor chart in Figure 20 and
Table 22; the validation table of the prediction results
with company history data indicates that ESP in July
experienced a High-Temperature Motor on July 3,
2020.
5.4.4. Prescription of Preventive Action
The notification system's logic is based on pattern
recognition for event detections and prediagnostic
applications. These notifications allow for fast and
automated operational corrections to maintain optimal
pump operation. For example, a typical correction
might include suggesting a pressure test, contacting the
Field Service Tech, or providing a detailed explanation
in Table 23. Table 24 illustrates the output of the
surveillance system, including the prescription of
preventive action for predicting a specific failure.
9
6. Conclusion
1. LSTM is used to forecast the downhole
parameters installed on the Electric Submersible
Pump (ESP) five days in advance with an
acceptable percentage error and R Score, which is
also classified as a highly accurate forecast and
eligible for further processing analysis.
2. The virtual flow rates are reconstructed using an
LSTM based on "how similar" data from the
provided well test data with getting error average
of 12.6% (result from the blind test), which is
bigger than the error of the KNN-Regressor's 5%.
3. There are 27 types of recorded problems based on
updated matrix troubleshooting. It is shown in
Table 7. Updated matrix troubleshooting is more
informative and detailed about the
troubleshooting.
The resulting failure of ESP five days ago is Low
Productivity Index (Decision Tree) and Low
Cooling Motor (updated matrix troubleshooting).
It is the same with the actual condition is High-
Temperature Motor.
4. The combination of multivariate forecasting
LSTM and machine learning with a Decision Tree
is chosen as the surveillance system for detecting
abnormal data and generating the predictive
results compatible with the company's historical
data. In addition, the surveillance system is also
equipped with the prescription of preventive
action provided by the related company.
7. Recommendation
1. The data is limited since not all wells have a real-
time monitoring system on the ESP downhole
gauge. Adding a real-time surveillance system to
other wells, if possible, would increase the
amount of data collected.
2. If sensor readings are obtained at constant time
intervals, the time filtering and down sampling
processes are no longer necessary. It is believed
that these expedite the database creation
procedure.
3. The API RP 11S1 and ISO 14224 standards make
early ESP failure prediction more accurate. A
failure mode describes an ESP system failure,
failed item(s), failure descriptor(s), and failure
cause, which is illustrated in Figure 21.
4. The value of horsepower and voltage shouldn't
rely on installation data and be estimated using
new approaches since these are one of the most
considerable parameters for flow rate
reconstruction.
5. Using orange applications in EDA in identifying
outliers isn't accurate. EDA should use python.
6. Created a dataset for the updated matrix
troubleshooting so that it can be used in
supervised learning
8. Acknowledgment
The author would like to thank Allah SWT and His
blessings for allowing this study to be conducted
accurately.
The acknowledgments are also extended to those who
have been involved, supportive, and guiding
throughout the author's studies at Bandung Institute of
Technology and the completion of this bachelor's
thesis, including:
1. Beloved family for the ceaseless support,
motivation, and prayers during the whole study.
2. Mrs. Silvya Dewi Rahmawati, S.Si., M.Si., Ph.D.
as the first thesis adviser, for the guidance and
motivation to my interest in artificial lift course
until thesis finishing.
3. Mr. Marda Vidrianto, Mr. Andang Suharji, and the
Artificial Lift team on Pertamina Hulu Energi
Offshore Southeast Sumatra for providing the data
and the guidance during thesis' study.
4. Mrs. Faradilla Bayagub and Mr. Fahmi Hidayat
spared time to facilitate discussions and mentoring
out of their busy schedules.
5. Fadhil Rafi was sparing time for discussions and
mentoring about python out of his busy schedule.
6. Al Rizki Dwi Lanang and Faiz Alfarisi as the
author's thesis partner in Pertamina Hulu Energi
Offshore Southeast Sumatra, to brainstorm about
machine learning study.
7. Farah Saphira's encouraging words and thoughtful
yet detailed feedback have been very important to
me.
8. Gading Arganu, Mahmuda Nurhadi, Fajril Afkaar,
Widi Rossita for the support during the study.
9. All lecturers and staffs within Bandung Institute of
Technology Petroleum Engineering Department,
for the knowledge and support throughout author's
undergraduate study.
9. Nomenclature
𝐷𝑝 = 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑑𝑜𝑤𝑛ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑜𝑟
𝑓 = 𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟
𝑙𝑏𝑚
𝑚 = 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 ( )
𝑑 SHORT-TERM MEMORY. Neural
𝑝 = 𝑖𝑛 𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑢 𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒
𝑓𝑡
𝑢𝑚 = 𝑚𝑖𝑥𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 ( ) Hyndman, R. J., & B. Koehler, A. (2006). Another
𝑠𝑒𝑐
∆𝑃 = Result from Hagedorn brown calculation.
HP = Horse Power
STG = Stages
PBHP = Producing Bottom Hole Pressure
PBHT = Producing Bottom Hole Temperature
AMP = Ampere
LSTM = Long Short-Term Memory
KNN = K-Nearest Neighbour
10
PSD = Pressure Setting Depth
10. References
Alhanati, F., S.C, S., & T.A, Z. (2001). ESP Failures:
Can We Talk the Same Language? SPE
148333, 11.
Armstrong, J. S. (1986). Long-Range Forecasting
From Crystal Ball to Computer.
International Forecasting Journal, 4.
Bayagub, F. H. (2021). Early Electric Submersible
Pump Failure Detection Using Artificial
Intelligence. Bachelor Thesis in Petroleum
Engineering ITB, 26.
Chicco, D., Warrens, M., & Jurman, G. (n.d.). The
coefficient of determination R-squared is
more informative than SMAPE, MAE,
MAPE, MSE and RMSE in regression
analysis evaluation.
Economide, M. J., Hill, A., & Ehlig-Economides, C.
(1993). Petroleum Production Sysyems. New
Jersey: Prentice Hall PTR.
Geron, A. (2018). Hands-On Machine Learning with
Scikit-Learn and TensorFlow. United States
of America: O'Reilly Media.
Guo, B., Lyons, W., & Ghalambor, A. (2007).
Petroleum Production Engineering: A
Computer-Assisted Approach. Louisiana:
Elsevier Science & Technology Books.
Gupta, S., Nikolaou, M., & Saputelli, L. (2016). ESP
Health Monitoring KPI: A Real-Time
Predictive Analytics Application. SPE-
181009-MS, 10.
Hidayat, F. (2021). New Production Optimization
Workflow: Coupling the Well Modeling and
Field Optimization. Bachelor Thesis in
Petroleum Engineering, 22.
Hochreiter, S., & Schmidhuber, J. (1997). LONG
Computation 9(8):1735-1780, 1997, 32.
look at measures of forecast accuracy.
International Journal of Forecasting 22, 10.
Korstanje, J. (2021). Advanced Forecasting with
Python With State-of-the-Art-Models
Including LSTMSs, Facebook's Prophet, and
Amazon's Deep AR. Maison Alfort: Apress.
Matt Cumings, M. A. (2013). ESP Surveillance and
Optimization Solutions: Ensuring Best
 Performance and Optimum Value. SPE
164382, 14.

Myttenaere, A. D., Golden, B., & Rossi, F. (2016).

Mean Absolute Percentage Error for
regression models. Neurocomputing, 11.

Nielsen, F. (2010). Introductory time series with R.

Journal Of Applied Statistics, 12.

Ratcliff, D. E., Gomez, C., & Madogwe, O. (2013).

Maximizing Oil Production and Increasing
ESP Run Life in a Brownfield Using Real-
Time ESP Monitoring and Optimization
Software: Rockies Field Case Study. SPE
166386, 11.

Santoso, H. B., Vidrianto, M., & Siagian, U. W.

(2020). Predicting Failure in Electric
Submersible Pump by Utilizing Machine
Learning Based on Real-Time Sensor Data.
IATMI Professional Technical Paper, 23.

Saputelli, L., & Gupta, S. (2016). Big Data Analytics

Workflow to Safeguard ESP Operations in
Real-Time. SPE-181224-MS, 14.

Schmidhuber, J. (2014). Deep learning in neural

network: An Overview. Elsevier Neural
Network, 33.

Shabonas, A. R., & Khabibullin, R. A. (2020).

Prediction of ESPs Failure Using ML at
Western Siberia Oilfields with Large
Number of Wells. SPE-2011881-MS, 16.

Takacs, G. (2018). Electrical Submersible Pumps

Manual. Cambridge, United State: Gulf
Professional Publishing.

Waskito, L. B., & Vidrianto, M. (2019). Initiate

Digital Oil Field Application at Mature
Offshore Oil Field in South East Sumatera,
Indonesia. SPE-196398-MS, 6.

11
 List of Figures

Figure 1 Main Part of An ESP (Alhanati, S.C, & T.A, 2001)

Figure 2 RNN Cell

12
 Figure 3 LSTM Cells.

Figure 4 Illustrate Forget Gate

Figure 5 Illustratae Input Gate

13
 Figure 6 Illustrate Cell Gate

Figure 7 Illustrate Output Gate

Figure 8 Methodology

14
Figure 9 Selected Time Interval and Model LSTM Forecasting of Discharge Pressure

Figure 10 Hidden Layer of LSTM Model

Figure 11 Result Tuning of LSTM

15
16
 Figure 12 Model Loss LSTM

(a.Discharge Pressure, b. Motor Temperature, c. Average Ampere, d. Intake Temperature, e. Intake Pressure, f. Vibration)

Figure 13 Result Model LSTM, data changed

17
Figure 14 Model LSTM and Model July on July

18
19
 Figure 15 Visualization Model LSTM Fit Result Forecasting Downhole Sensor

(a.Discharge Pressure, b. Motor Temperature, c. Average Ampere, d. Intake Temperature, e. Intake Pressure, f. Vibration)

20
21
 Figure 16 Result Forecasting LSTM in 5 days

(a.Discharge Pressure, b. Motor Temperature, c. Average Ampere, d. Intake Temperature, e. Intake Pressure, f. Vibration)

Figure 17 Model LSTM For Regression

22
 Figure 18 Model Loss LSTM

Figure 19 Graph Result of Forecasting in August

Figure 20 Graph Result of Forecasting in July

23
 Figure 21 ISO 14244 and API RP11S1 Standard

List of Tables
Table 1 ESP Installation Failure

Category Cause Characteristics

Pump off due to low liquid rate, downtime, and low pump
Insufficient well inflow efficiency.

Low pump efficiency due to high gas-liquid ratio because

high casing pressure pushes casing gas through the pump,
Poor Reservoir Free gas interference or pump setting depth is too shallow.
Performance

Throated tubing by waxing causes a low production rate.

Waxing or emulsification Production resumes typically after dewaxing by heating
or physical removal.

Reverse-rotations of impellers disable the ESP. This is

Reverse-rotation of caused by insufficient pump capacity to remove all fluids
ESP flowing from reservoir to well.

Downhole Pump throughput drops due to leakage in the draining

Downhole leakage valve, tubing coupling, or pressure gauge.
Equipment Failures
The oil rate drops due to the ESP shaft break. Abrasions
Pump mechanical failure of impellers induce high slippage and low pump
efficiency.

Surface Facility Waxing in flowline, small choke flow area, and choke
Issue Surface flow blockage plugged by produced sand or waxing.

Table 2 Supervised Algorithm

Algorithm Strengths Weaknesses

1. Robust to noise.
Logistic 1. Requires data preparation.
2. Good interpretability because the output
Regressions 2. Handles only linear decision boundaries.
is the probability.
1. Requires data preparation.
Support 1. Works well in the complicated domain 2. Kernel selection can be tricky.
Vector
Machine 2. Works well with outliers. 3. Poor performance and long computation time
if the data set is large and noisy.

1. No effort for data preparation. 1. Lack of interpretability if tree quantity is

Random
2. Able to rank feature importance. large.
Forest
3. Works well in high-dimensional spaces. 2. May overfit if data is noisy.

24
 1. Very easy to implement for a multiclass
problem.
K-Nearest 1. Doesn't perform well on imbalanced data.
2. Constantly evolves by responding
Neighbor 2. Very sensitive to outliers.
quickly to changes in the input during
real-time use.

1. Not require any normalization of data. 1. Inadequate for applying regression and
Decision
Tree 2. Missing values do not affect the process predicting continuous values.
of building a model. 2. Involves higher time to train the model.

Table 3 MAPE Value for Forecasting Power

MAPE Value (%) Forecasting Power

< 10 Highly Accurate Forecasting

10 – 20 Good Forecasting

20 – 50 Reasonable Forecasting
> 50 Weak and Inaccurate Forecasting

Table 4 Raw Data for LSTM Model

Intake Intake Motor

Average Discharge Vibration
Well Reading Time Pressure Temperature Temperature
Ampere (A) Pressure (psi) (Gravit)
(psi) (psi) (oF)
FHB-03 2020-04-11 14:00:00 41.520000 1326.23200 4545.39000 296.404000 338.894000 0.742000
FHB-03 2020-04-11 15:00:00 37.215152 1206.21651 4647.44454 294.87424 333.012273 0.796515

FHB-03 2020-04-11 16:00:00 33.876667 1124.3133 4511.421667 292.32667 327.60333 0.700000

FHB-03 … … … … … … …

FHB-03 2020-08-01 00:00:00 25.7000000 471.10000 3795.90000 283.8000 318.0000 0.800000

Table 5 Data Pre-Processing for Regression Virtual Rate

25
 Table 6 Result Data Processing After EDA

Table 7 Updated Troubleshooting Failure Matrix

Average Intake Discharge Intake Motor

Well Condition Vibration Rate Status
Ampere Pressure Pressure Temperature Temperature

Shaft Broken D I I I I I D 1
String Leaking I I I I I - D 2
Intake Plugged D I I I I - D 3
Perforation Plugged D D D - I - D 4

Water Cut Increase I I I - C - D 5

Start up with killing

fluid I C C - I - I 6

Shut-in at surface D I I - I - D 7

Pump stage plugged I I I - I - D 8

Reservoir pressure
I I I - C - I 9
increase
Free gas increase at
intake I D I - I - D 10

Pump stage wear D I D - I I D 11

Frequency Increase I D I - I - I 12

Open choke C D D - C - I 13

Closed SCSSV D I I - I - D 14

Lower influx D D D - I - D 15

Higher influx I I I - C - I 16

26
 Reverse rotation D I D - I - D 17

Sand Ingestion I D C - I I D 18

Gas ingestion C D C - I - D 19

Scale build-up on
pump I D D I I - D 20

Shroud plugged
above the sensor D I D I I - D 21

Shroud plugged
D D D I I - D 22
below the sensor

Low Cooling motor I/D D D I I - D 23

High CP D I D I I - D 24

Pump housing leak

near the head I I D I I - D 25

Pump housing leak

at middle to bottom D I D I I - D 26

Choke Plugging D I I I I - D 27

Table 8 Forecasting Accuracy LSTM

Downhole Sensor MAPE R Squared

Discharge Pressure 2.8428 0.99

Motor Temperature 0.9358 0.92

Average Ampere 1.34 0.95

Intake Temperature 0.5163 0.90

Intake Pressure 2.92 0.98

Vibration 8.074 0.94

27
 Table 9 Sensitivity Layer for LSTM in July

Hidden Layer Model LSTM and R Square

256

128

512

28
 Table 10 MAPE and R Squared for July

Downhole Sensor MAPE R Squared

Discharge Pressure 1.6531 -.1.237

Motor Temperature 0.7301 0.67

Average Ampere 7.48 0.76

Intake Temperature 2.2416 -0.93

Intake Pressure 2.5442 0.298

Vibration 8.967 -3.21

Table 11 Compare R Square Model LSTM August and July

Downhole Sensor August July

Discharge Pressure 0.99 -1.237

Motor Temperature 0.92 0.67

Average Ampere 0.96 0.760

Intake Temperature 0.1 0.930

Intake Pressure 0.98 0.297

Vibration 0.84 -3.21

Table 12 Result error from LSTM Model compared with actual data

Downhole Sensor August July

Discharge Pressure

Motor Temperature

Average Ampere

Intake Temperature

Intake Pressure

29
 Vibration

Table 13 Error Blind Test LSTM Model

Well BFPD Predicted BFPD Error

NIS-01 747 619.2 13.4

IIS-08 1067 964.64 9.6

AGN-C2S 277 289.9 4.69

REL-03 171 189.3 10.6

Table 14 Error Blind Test KNN-Regressor

Well BFPD Predicted BFPD Error

NIS-08 5260 4985.707 5.21

IIS-08 1067 1051.69 1.43

AGN-C3 928 924.525 0.37

REL-11 5076 4852.45 4.4

Table 15 Result Of Rate Reconstruction for August

Average Intake Discharge Intake Motor

Well Reading Time Ampere Pressure Pressure Temperature Temperature Vibration Rate

FHB-03 2020-08-01 01.00.00 27.2391 461.054 3824.071 285.3533 316.235 0.8331 276.6364

FHB-03 2020-08-01 02.00.00 27.26844 461.3316 3824.088 285.2121 315.8248 0.81655 276.6166

FHB-03 2020-08-01 03.00.00 27.11796 462.29 3824.683 285.4109 315.8114 0.8508 276.551

FHB-03 2020-08-01 04.00.00 27.595 461.1531 3822.451 285.3742 316.2411 0.840618 276.729

…… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… ……
FHB-03 2020-08-06 01.00.00 28.1986 461.0296 3819.598 285.5276 316.664 0.930413 277.2766

Table 16 Result Of Rate Reconstruction for July

Average Intake Discharge Intake Motor

Well Reading Time Ampere Pressure Pressure Temperature Temperature Vibration Rate

FHB-03 2020-06-28 01.00.00 26.88197 493.4565 3747..977051 287.2691 318.453678 0.542396 292.5868

FHB-03 2020-06-28 02.00.00 26.40584 494.0146 3747.997314 289.0301 321.768209 0.511477 292.7283
30
FHB-03 2020-06-28 03.00.00 26.52379 496.79 3748.0518 288.21 319.661499 0.544018 293.0066

FHB-03 2020-06-28 04.00.00 27.04052 493.3766 3747.967773 287.7553 318.9258 0.5079 292.9812

…… …… …… …… …… …… …… …… ……
FHB-03 2020-07-03 03.00.00 25.45657 503.7595 3748.264893 288.4318 318.6367798 0.467114538 292.7832

Table 17 Assumption Data for Hagedorn-brown Correlation

Data Field Unit

Depth 10,109 Ft

Tubing Iner Diameter 2.992 In

o
Oil Gravity 30 API

Oil Viscosity 5 Cp

Production GLR 20 Scf/bbl

Gas Specific Gravity 0.7 Water = 1

Flowing Tubing Head Pressure 200 Psia

Flowing tubing head o

80 F
Temperature

The flowing temperature at the o

180 F
tubing shoe

Liquid Production Rate 282.106 Stb/day

Water Cut 42 %

Interfacial Tension 30 Dynes/cm

Specific Gravity of Water 1.05 𝐻2𝑂 = 1

Table 18 Result of Slope Calculation in August

Average Intake Discharge Intake Motor

Vibration Rate
Ampere Pressure Pressure Temperature Temperature

0.02934 0.2776 0.017 -0.1412 -0.4102 -0.01655 -0.0198

-0.15048 0.9584 0.595 0.1988 -0.0134 0.03425 -0.0656

31
 Table 19 Sample of Processing Data (Machine Learning)

Average Intake Discharge Intake Motor

Vibration Rate Trip
Ampere Pressure Pressure Temperature Temperature

-0.0538 -0.0017 0.0133 0.0001 0.0016 0.2017 -0.0944 9

0.0546 0.0645 0.0145 0.0009 -0.0015 0.2017 0.0431 4

-0.0038 -0.0193 -0.003 -0.0013 -0.0008 -0.0268 -0.0026 0

0.0034 -0.0304 0.0085 0.0001 0.0006 -0.0609 0.0083 6

0.006415 0.000111 0.002451 0.000631 0.000986 0.046957 0.002384 0

-0.0297 -0.0018 -0.0153 0.0005 -0.0004 0.3061 -0.0023 1

Table 20 Pattern Matrix for Classification with Machine Learning

Average Intake Discharge Intake Motor

Well Condition Ampere Pressure Pressure Temperature Temperature Vibration Rate Status

Low PI I/D D D - - - D 1

Pump Wear D I D - - I D 2
Tubing Leak C I D I I - D 3
Higher PI I/D I I - - - I 4
Increase in
I D I - I - I 5
Frequency
Open Choke I D D - C - D 6
Increase in
I I I - C - D 7
Watercut
Sand Ingestion I D I/D - I/D I/D D 8
Closed Valve
D I I I I - D 9
(SSSV)

32
 Table 21 Result of Failure Prediction in August

Table 22 Result of Failure Prediction in July

Table 23 Notifications for Engineers to Preventive

Table 24 Prescribed Preventive measures.

No. Well Conditions Possible Cause Prescriptive Message

- Confirm by a pressure test at the
tubing wellhead.
1. Tubing Leak
- Conduct dead head test or fill up the
tubing and pressure up against RCV.
- Verify if the valve was deliberately
Closed Valve partially closed by Field Service Tech.
2.
(SSSV) - Contact the Field Service Tech to
check out well on location.

- Analyze the fluid level and Bottom

Hole Pressure data.
Well productivity
Low Productivity - Adjust the tubing well head pressure
3. less than pump
Index (PI) and
design range
bring the pump production rate within
design rate.

33
 - Pumping fluids through tubing when
water sources are available. If
restricted by high viscous oil, solvent
Restricted pump or higher gravity fluid should be
injected down well annulus to dilute.
- Use VSD in 'rocking mode' to
remove debris.

- Analyze the fluid level and Bottom

Well productivity Hole Pressure data.
greater than pump - Adjust the tubing wellhead pressure
design range and bring the pump production rate
Higher Productivity within the design rate.
4.
Index (PI) - Adjust the tubing wellhead pressure
and bring the pump production rate
Change in fluid within the design rate.
characteristics
- Conduct the fluid analysis as a basis
for redesigning the pump.
Check the pump discharge pressure
5. Open Choke and well production rate compared to
previous well data history.
- Check flow line and separator for sand,
mud, or debris evidence.
6. Sand Ingestion
- Design a solid control system for the
next installation.
- Check that the system performance
has decreased (kWh/BPD/1000 ft of
lift) over 15-20% from the installation
date.
7. Pump Wear
- Verify if the vibration has increased by
20% from the pump install date.
- Shut-in test while the surface check
valve is closed and the pump runs.
- Check the pump discharge pressure
and compare it to previous well data
Increase in history.
8.
Frequency
- Lower the value of frequency using
VSD.
Adjust the tubing wellhead pressure
Increase in Water
9. and bring the pump production rate
Cut
within the design rate.

34