SPE-187621-MS

Application of Artificial Intelligence Techniques in Estimating Oil Recovery

Factor for Water Derive Sandy Reservoirs

Ahmed Abdulhamid Ahmed, Salaheldin Elkatatny, Abdulazeez Abdulraheem, and Mohamed Mahmoud, All KFUPM

Copyright 2017, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Kuwait Oil & Gas Show and Conference held in Kuwait City, Kuwait, 15-18 October 2017.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Oil and gas operating companies are always concerned with evaluating the reserve of their assets. Evaluation
process of hydrocarbon reserves requires a full understanding and knowledge of technical and non-technical
aspects regarding the nature of reservoir, available technology and economic conditions as well as others.
Recovery factor (RF) is the most important parameter in evaluating the reserve of new fields.
Several techniques are currently available for estimating oil recovery factor, the accuracy of those
techniques are highly affected by data availability which is mainly related to the field age. Some of the
techniques are highly accurate but they require lots of production data, hence, their applicability early in
the reservoir life is restricted. Others could be applied earlier, but on the other hand, they have very low
accuracy.
In this paper ten parameters (original oil in place, asset area, net pay, initial reservoir pressure, porosity,
permeability, Lorenz coefficient, API gravity, initial water saturation and oil viscosity), which are usually
available early in the life of the reservoir, are used to estimate the oil recovery factor through application
of four Artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques namely: artificial neuron networks (ANNs), Radial Basis
Neuron Network (RNN), ANFIS-2 (Adaptive Neuro Fuzzy Inference System, Subtractive Clustering), and
SVM (Support Vector Machines). Data from 130 sandstone reservoirs were used to learn the AI models,
and then an empirical correlation was developed based on the ANN model. The suggested AI models and
the developed ANN-based correlation were then tested in other 38 sandstone reservoirs.
The results obtained showed that ANN-based correlation successfully predicted the recovery factor
based on early time data only with absolute average percentage error (AAPE) of 7.92%, coefficient of
determination (R2) of 0.9417, root mean square error (RMSE) and maximum absolute percent error (MAE)
of 3.74 and 24.07%, respectively. ANN-based empirical correlation over-performed RNN, ANFIS-2, and
SVM models in term of AAPE, MAE, and RMSE for testing set. Comparison of the recovery factor
predicted by the developed equation with three available correlations showed that the developed equation
predictability is about 5 times better that the most accurate correlation (of the currently available ones) in
term of AAPE for predicted RF of the tested 38 reservoirs.
2 SPE-187621-MS

Introduction
Petroleum industry is characterized by the need to make significant investment decisions under several
uncertainties. In order to minimize those uncertainties in key areas like reservoir characterization, data
management, and reserve (recoverable hydrocarbon) estimation, several techniques are currently used.
Oil recovery factor is the most critical parameter for all Exploration and Development (E&P) companies
mainly during the early reservoir life, hence, several investment decisions are based on the amount of
hydrocarbon, which could be obtained from the target asset with the available techniques and operational
practices. There are mainly six available techniques for oil reserve estimation; (1) Analogy, which is
based on comparing the geological and petrophysical properties of poorly defined or newly discovered
reservoir to old ones and setting a range of oil recovery factor for the new asset based on those of
the similar assets (AAPG, 2014), (2) Volumetric calculations (Craft and Hawkins, 1991), this method
calculates the original oil in place first based on the asset dimensions, fluid properties, and rock parameters
by assuming the reservoir is sealed then based on the recovery mechanism of the reservoir, the reserve
could be estimated, (3) Material balance calculations (Ahmed, 2006; Craft and Hawkins, 1991; Dake,
1978; Lee and Wattenbarger, 1996), this technique requires oil, water, and gas production data as well as
data related to water encroachment from the reservoir, (4) Decline curve analysis (Agarwal et al., 1998;
Lee and Wattenbarger, 1996), application of this technique also requires production data, (5) Numerical
reservoir simulation, which combines both material balance equations and fluid flow equations to estimate
hydrocarbon reserve, and (6) Empirical correlations, several correlations are currently available and the
accuracy of these correlations depend mainly on data availability. The first two techniques are applicable
early in the reservoir life but they are not accurate, the accuracy of the recovery factor prediction could be
increased by including production data into calculations and applying one of the 3rd, 4th, or 5th techniques,
which accuracy depends on the availability of production data.
The fact that RF is affected by several engineering and geological aspects makes estimation of recovery
factor very complicated since no clear approach, which consider all those aspects, is available. In this paper,
four AI techniques (ANN, RNN, ANFIS-2, and SVM) are used to estimate oil recovery factor based on ten
parameters (original oil in place, asset area, net pay, initial reservoir pressure, porosity, permeability, Lorenz
coefficient, API gravity, initial water saturation and oil viscosity), which are readily available for all assets
at their early stages and an empirical equation was developed based on the ANN model, which could be
easily programed and used for recovery factor calculations.

Literature Review
In 1945, The American Petroleum Institute (API) initiated a data collection process aiming to correlate the
recovery factor with reservoir rock parameters and properties of the produced fluid. An investigation was
then conducted by a special study committee on well spacing. They examined data from 103 oil reservoirs,
25% of them are depletion-drive reservoirs and the remaining are water-drive reservoirs from sandstone,
limestone, and dolomite formations.
Craze and Buckley (1945), in connection with the special API study, listed 19 parameters which have
a major effect on recovery efficiency for 103 reservoirs. They reported that the rock properties, fluid
properties, mode of production, derive mechanism, and structural aspects are highly affecting the oil
recovery factor. Ten years later, Guthrie and Greenberger (1955) suggested the empirical correlation in Eq. 1
between oil recovery factor from water derive reservoir and five factors, which affect recovery in sandstone
reservoirs.
Eq. 1
Where Ro is the oil recovery factor, k is the reservoir permeability, Sw is the water saturation, µo is the oil
viscosity, ϕ is the reservoir porosity, and h is the reservoir thichness.
SPE-187621-MS 3

Muskat and Taylor (1946) studied the effect of reservoir fluid and rock characteristics on production from
gas-drive reservoirs, they reported that the ultimate oil recovery decreases with the increase in oil viscosity,
while Arps and Roberts (1955) found that the ultimate recovery increases with oil gravity, except for the
higher solution gas-oil ratios.
Between 1956 and 1984, API published many correlations for recovery factor calculation based on real
performance data from producing fields rather than on theoretical or laboratory data. They presented two
equations, Eq. 2 for water drive reservoirs and Eq. 3 for depletion derive reservoirs.

Eq. 2

Eq. 3

Where Boi is the formation folume factor at the initial reservoir pressure, Boa is the formation folume
factor at the abandonment pressure, µwi is the water viscosity at reservoir pressure, pi is the initial reservoir
pressure, pi is the abondonment pressure.
Gulstad (1995) succeeded to determine recovery factor using multiple linear regression techniques using
the same API data used in the previous publications for water derive reservoirs. He came up with Eq. 4 and
Eq. 5 for sandstone and carbonate reservoirs, respectively.

Eq. 4

Eq. 5

Where OOIP is the original oil in place, µob is the oil viscosity at buble point pressure, µoi is the oil
viscosity at reservoir pressure, T is the reservoir temperature.
Since the early 1990’s, Artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques has had many applications in many
scientific fields including petroleum industry. Currently, AI is used to solve problems related to
unconventional resources evaluation (Mahmoud et al., 2017a,b), predicting the bubble point pressure
(Elkatatny & Mahmoud, 2017a,b; Saeed et al., 2016), real time prediction of reological parameters of the
drilling fluids (Elkatatny, 2017; Elkatatny et al., 2017a; Elkatatny, 2016; Elkatatny et al., 2016a), well
log interpretation (Elkatatny et al., 2017b; Long et al., 2016; Lim et al., 1998; Houze and Allain, 1992),
estimation of rock mechanical parameters (Tariq et al., 2017a,b,c; Elkatatny et al., 2017c; Zeeshan et al.,
2016a,b; Elkatatny et al., 2016b) reservoir characterization (Elkatatny & Mahmoud 2017c; Finlay et al.,
2014; Barman et al., 2000; Mohaghegh et al., 1994; Ouenes et al., 1995), optimization of rate of penetration
(Elkatatny et al., 2017d) pressure transient analysis (Almaraghi and El-banbi, 2015; Alajmi and Ertekin,
2007; Aydinoglu et al., 2002) and others. Noureldien and El-Banbi (2015) were successfully introduced the
use of ANNs to estimate the oil recovery factor using data usually accessible early in the reservoir life with
an absolute average percentage error (AAPE) of 9.5%.
In this work, ANN, RNN, ANFIS-2 and SVM techniques are compared in estimating oil recovery factor
using the same parameters (original oil in place, asset area, net pay, initial reservoir pressure, porosity,
permeability, Lorenz coefficient, API gravity, initial water saturation and oil viscosity) which used earlier
for simple ANNs model suggested by Noureldien and El-Banbi (2015). An empirical correlation was
developed based on the ANN model, and this correlation was compared with three empirical correlations
from literature.
4 SPE-187621-MS

Methodology
A dataset of 173 lessons were collected for this study, the data sets were analyzed statistically and outliers
were removed, 5 lessons of them were not fitting with others and considered as outliers, then the remaining
data sets (from 168 lessons) were used to develop the AI models, the AI models were trained using 77%
of the data and the remaining (23%) used to test the trained models. The parameters used to train the AI
models (ten parameters) are explained in Table 1.

Table 1—The parameters used to generate the AI models

These parameters could be divided into four groups (asset size, rock parameters, fluid properties, and
reservoir energy). Table 2 summarizes the statistical description of the data (130 reservoirs) used to train
the AI models used in this work. Figure 1 and Figure 2 shows the histograms and cross plots of different
parameters versus RF, respectively.

Table 2—Statistical description of the data used to develop the AI models in this work
SPE-187621-MS 5

Figure 1—Histograms of the parameters used in this study.

Figure 2—Cross-plots of the parameters used in this study vs recovery factor.

6 SPE-187621-MS

The first technique used in this study is the backpropagation ANN, the suggested model consists of one
hidden layer having 5 neurons, Levenberg-Marquardt was used to train the model, and one output layer with
a tan-sigmoid transfer function was used. The second technique considered in this work is the RNN, the
proposed model has a goal of zero with data spread of 3, and maximum number of neurons of 16. ANFIS-2
was also used to obtain the recovery factor, the optimum radius of the cluster which has the less error was
found to be 0.70, which is then used to estimate the recovery factor for the testing set. The last technique
considered in this study, is the SVM "gaussian" kernel, with karnel option of 1.7, epsilon of 2.0, lambda of
1e-8, and C of 2500, which were found to represent the optimum parameters for this model.
An empirical correlation based on ANN model (the ANN model over-performed all the models used in
this work as will be discussed later) was then developed and tested in this study.

Results and Discussion

Figure 3 shows the cross plot of actual vs estimated RF based on ANN technique for both training and
testing data sets, training data set has R2 and AAPE of 0.9461 and 5.80%, respectively. The trained model
was then used to develop the empirical equation (Eq. 6) shown below which was able to predict the oil
recovery factor with R2 and AAPE of 0.9417 and 7.92%, respectively. For the testing set, predictability of
ANN-based equation over-performed all other AI models in term of AAPE of the tested data. Eq. 6 was
developed on the same base as that followed by Mahmoud et al. (2017a).

Figure 3—Predicted vs actual recovery factor based on ANN model (a) Training data set, (b) Testing data set.

Eq. 6

Where RF is the recovery factor, N is the total number of neurons, J is the number of inputs (in this
case 10 inputs are used, see Table 1) w1 and b1 are the weight and bias of hidden layer, w2 and b2 are the
weight and bias of output layer. Weights and biases of hidden and output layers are listed in Table 3, Y is
the input value in the normalized form. The use of equation form (like Eq. 6) based on weights and biases
for calculating the desired outputs is suggested before by many authors "e.g: (Mahmoud et al., 2017a)".
SPE-187621-MS 7

Table 3—The proposed ANN-based weights and biases for recovery factor calculations with Eq. 6.

RNN model results shown in Figure 4 has R2 of 0.9482 for training data which is higher than that of
ANN, but the R2 of the tested set is the lowest among all techniques used (R2 = 0.8797), the AAPE's for
both training and testing data are 6.86% and 8.78%, respectively, which are also high compared with these
achieved by ANN model.

Figure 4—Predicted vs actual recovery factor based on RNN model (a) Training data set, (b) Testing data set.

The suggested ANFIS-2 model has the lowest AAPE for training data set of 4.83%, and very high R2 of
0.9790, the tested data set with this model also exhibit a good R2 with actual oil recovery (R2 = 0.9105) and
relatively low AAPE of 8.53% as shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5—Predicted vs actual recovery factor based on ANFIS-2 model (a) Training data set, (b) Testing data set.
8 SPE-187621-MS

The highest R2 for training data set was achieved by SVM (R2 = 0.9874) as shown in Figure 6, with
relatively low AAPE of 5.11%, application of the optimized SVM model on testing data set showed the
highest AAPE of 10.44% and relatively low R2 of 0.9024.

Figure 6—Predicted vs actual recovery factor based on SVM model (a) Training data set, (b) Testing data set.

Table 4 summarizes the values of R2 and AAPE for the training and testing data sets between the actual
and predicted recovery factor estimated through the four AI techniques used in this work.

Table 4—Coefficient of determinations between actual and predicted oil recovery

by different AI techniques and the AAPE of the predicted oil recovery factor

The performance of three available empirical correlations for recovery factor estimation from water
derive sandstone reservoirs was compared with the prediction capability of the suggested ANNs model as
shown in Figure 7, ANNs model over-performed all correlations in term of coefficient of determination
with R2's of 0.9461, 0.4029, -0.1838, and 0.5516 between actual and estimated RF through ANN's equation,
Guthrie and Greenberger correlation (1955), API (1984) correlation, and Gulstad (1995) correlation,
respectively.
SPE-187621-MS 9

Figure 7—Predicted versus actual recovery factor estimated by ANN correlation, Guthrie
and Greenberger correlation (1955), API (1984) correlation, and Gulstad (1995) correlation.

Deviation of the RF estimated using ANN model and the three empirical correlations considered in
this work from actual ones was compared for all the training lessons. Figure 8 shows the results of
this comparison, it indicates that the estimated RF by ANN model has lower deviation compared to all
correlations studied, with deviation of between (-10% to +20% maximum). Table 5 compares the error in
the estimated RF from ANN based equation with those of empirical correlations through different error
measures (AAPE, MAE, RMSE, and R2), all the measures used to quantify the errors indicate that ANNs
based model has the lowest error and the highest correlation with the real RF. Appendix A summerizes the
relationships used to calculate the error with different measure.

Figure 8—Relative deviation of the estimated recovery factor by ANN correlation, Guthrie and Greenberger
correlation (1955), API (1984) correlation, and Gulstad (1995) correlation from the actual recovery factor.
10 SPE-187621-MS

Table 5—Comparison of AAPE, MAE, RMSE and R2 for ANN correlation, Guthrie and
Greenberger correlation (1955), API (1984) correlation, and Gulstad (1995) correlation

Conclusion
Recovery factor estimation is a very complicated problem. In this paper, four AI models (ANN, RNN,
ANFIS-2, and SVM) were optimized to predict RF by using only the data readily available early in the
reservoir's life. Based on the obtained results, the following concluions can be drawn:
1. ANN is the best AI model to predict the RF based on its lowest AAPE of 7.92% and highest R2 of
0.9416 for the testing data set (38 reservoirs).
2. An empirical correlation was developed based on ANN model which could be modeled easly to
facilitate the easy of calculating the RF.
3. The developed correlation based on the optimized ANN model outperformed the published
correlations (Guthrie and Greenberger correlation, API correlation, and Gulstad correlation) in terms
of all measures of error evaluation used in this study (AAPE, RMSE, and MAE), as well as it has
the highest coefficient of determination R2 of 0.9417 compared to only 0.5516 obtained from Gulstad
(1995) correlation which is the newest and most accurate correlation among the currently available
ones.

Nomenclature
AAPE = Absolute Average Percentage Error
AI = Artificial Intelligence
ANFIS-2 = Subtractive Clustering Genfis Model
ANN = Artificial Neural Network
MAE = Maximum Absolute Error
R2 = Coefficient of Determination
RF = Recovery Factor
RFa = Actual Correlation Factor
RFm = Estimated Correlation Factor
RNN = Radial Basis Neural Network
RMSE = Root Mean Squares Error
SVM = Support Vector Machine

References
AAPG, 2014. AAPG Wiki, 2014. Reserve Estimation, Wikipedia.
Agarwal, R. G., Gardner, D. C., Kleinsteiber, S. W., Fussell, D.D., 1998. "Analyzing Well Production Data Using
Combined Type Curve and Decline Curve Analysis Concepts". SPE "49222" Present. SPE Annu. Tech. Conf. Exhib.
New Orleans, Louisiana.
Ahmed, T., 2006. Reservoir Engineering Handbook, Chemical, Petrochemical & Process.
Alajmi, M., Ertekin, T., 2007. "The Development of an Artificial Neural Network as a Pressure Transient Analysis Tool
for Applications in Double-Porosity Reservoirs". Asia Pacific Oil Gas Conf. Exhib. Jakarta, Indones.
SPE-187621-MS 11

Almaraghi, A. M., El-banbi, A.H., 2015. "Automatic Reservoir Model Identification using Artificial Neural Networks in
Pressure Transient Analysis". SPE North Africa Tech. Conf. Exhib. Cairo, Egypt.
Arps, J. J., Roberts, T.G., 1955. "The effect of the relative permeability ratio, the oil gravity, and the solution gas-oil ratio
on the primary recovery from a depletion type reservoir". Trans. AIME (Petroleum Dev. Technol. 204, 120.
Aydinoglu, G., Bhat, M., Ertekin, T., 2002. "Characterization of Partially Sealing Faults from Pressure Transient Data:
An Artificial Neural Network Approach". SPE East. Reg. Conf. Proc.
Barman, I., Ouenes, A., Wang, M., 2000. "Fractured Reservoir Characterization Using Streamline-Based Inverse Modeling
and Artificial Intelligence Tools". SPE Annu. Tech. Conf. Exhib.
Craft, B. C., Hawkins, M., 1991. "Applied Petroleum Reservoir Engineering".
Craze, R. C., Buckley, S.E., 1945. "A factual analysis of the effect of well spacing on oil recovery". Prod. Pract. 144–159.
Dake, L.P., 1978. "Fundementals of Reservoir Engineering". 10.1016/B978-0-08-098206-9.00004-X
Elkatatny, S. M. 2016. "Determination the Rheological Properties of Invert Emulsion Based Mud on Real Time Using
Artificial Neural Network", Paper SPE 3517324 presented at the SPE Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Annual Technical
Symposium and Exhibition, Dammam, Saudi Arabia, 25-28 April.
Elkatatny, S.M. 2017. "Real Time Prediction of Rheological Parameters of KCl Water-Based Drilling Fluid Using
Artificial Neural Networks". Arabian Journal of Science and Engineering. 42 (4): pp. 1655–1665.
Elkatatny, S. A., and Mahmoud, M.A. 2017a. Development of a New Correlation for Bubble Point Pressure in Oil
Reservoirs Using Artificial Intelligent Technique. Arabian Journal of Science and Engineering. In Press.
Elkatatny, S. A., and Mahmoud, M.A. 2017b. "Development of a New Correlation for Bubble Point Pressure in Oil
Reservoirs Using Artificial Intelligent White Box Technique", Paper SPE presented at the SPE Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia Annual Technical Symposium and Exhibition, Dammam, Saudi Arabia, 24-27 April.
Elkatatny, S. M., and Mahmoud, M. A. 2017c. "Porosity Determination Using Artificial Intelligent Techniques
for Carbonate Reservoirs (White Box)", Paper ICCDMTA-2017-EDAS-7-1570328361 presented at International
Conference on Computers, Data Management & Technology Applications, Cairo, Egypt, 28-29 January.
Elkatatny, S. M., Zeeshan, T., and Mahmoud, M. A. 2016a. "Real Time Prediction of Drilling Fluid Rheological Properties
Using Artificial Neural Networks Visible Mathematical Model (White Box)". Journal of Petroleum Science and
Engineering. 146: pp. 1202–1210.
Elkatatny, S. M., Zeeshan, T., Mahmoud, M. A., Mohamed I., and Abdulazeez, A. 2016b. "Application of Artificial
Intelligent Techniques to Determine Sonic Time from Well Logs", Paper ARMA-2016-755 presented at the 50th U.S.
Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium, Houston, Texas, 26-29 June.
Elkatatny, S. A., Mahmoud, M. A., and Tariq, A. 2017a. "Real Time prediction of the Rheological Parameters of NaCl
Water-Based Drilling Fluid Using Artificial Neural Networks", Paper SPE presented at the SPE Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia Annual Technical Symposium and Exhibition, Dammam, Saudi Arabia, 24-27 April.
Elkatatny, S. M., Mahmoud, M. A., Zeeshan, T., and Abdulraheem, A. 2017b. "New Insights into the Prediction of
Heterogeneous Carbonate Reservoir Permeability from Well Logs Using Artificial Intelligent Network". Neural
Computing & Applications. In Press.
Elkatatny, S. M., Tariq, Z., and Mahmoud, M. A., Abdulraheem, A. Abdelwahab, A. Z. and Woldeamanuel, M. 2017c.
"An Artificial Intelligent Approach to Predict Static Poisson’s Ratio". Paper ARMA 17-771 presented at the 51st US
Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium held in San Francisco, California, USA, 25-28 June
Elkatatny, S. M. Tariq, Z., and Mahmoud, M. A., and Al-AbdulJabbar, A. 2017d. "Optimization of Rate of
Penetration Using Artificial Intelligent Techniques". Paper ARMA 17-429 presented at the 51st US Rock Mechanics/
Geomechanics Symposium held in San Francisco, California, USA, 25-28 June.
Finlay, S., Marquez, X., Solling, T., Centre, T., Bounoua, N., 2014. "Multi-scale carbonate reservoir characterisation and
artificial neural networks reveals complexity in the Shuaiba Reservoir", Al Shaheen Field. Int. Pet. Technol. Conf.
Doha, Qatar.
Gulstad, R.L., 1995. "The Determination of Hydrocarbon Reservoir recovery Factors By Using Modern Multiple Linear
Regression Techniques". MSc. Res. Texas A&M University.
Guthrie, R. K., Greenberger, M.H., 1955. "The Use of Multiple-correlation Analyses for Interpreting Petroleum-
engineering Data". Drill. Prod. Pract. 130–137.
Houze, O. P., Allain, O.F., 1992. "A Hybrid Artificial Intelligence Approach in Well Test Interpretation". SPE Annu.
Tech. Conf. Exhib.
Lee, J., Wattenbarger, R.A., 1996. "Gas reservoir engineering".
Lim, J.-S., Kang, J. M., Nati, S. U., Kim, J., 1998. "Artificial Intelligence Approach for Well-to-Well Log Correlation".
SPE India Oil Gas Conference Exhibition.
Long, W., Chai, D., Aminzadeh, F., 2016. "Pseudo Density Log Generation Using Artificial Neural Network". SPE West.
Reg. Meet. 23-26 May, Anchorage, Alaska, USA.
12 SPE-187621-MS

Mahmoud, Ahmed Abdulhamid A.; Elkatatny, S.; Mahmoud, M., Abouelresh, M., Abdulraheem, A., Ali, A., 2017a.
"Determination of the total organic carbon (TOC) based on conventional well logs using artificial neural network".
Int. J. Coal Geol. 179, 72–80. 10.1016/j.coal.2017.05.012.
Mahmoud, Ahmed Abdulhamid; Elkatatny, S.; Abdulraheem, A.; Mahmoud, M., Ibrahim, M. O., Ali, A., 2017b. "New
Technique to Determine the Total Organic Carbon Based on Well Logs Using Artificial Neural Network (White Box)".
Pap. "SPE-188016" Present. SPE Kingdom Saudi Arab. Annu. Tech. Symp. Exhib. held Dammam, Saudi Arab. 24-27
April.
Mohaghegh, S., Arefi, R., Ameri, S., Hefner, M.H., 1994. "A Methodological Approach for Reservoir Heterogeneity
Characterization Using Artificial Neural Networks". Proc. SPE Annu. Tech. Conf. Exhib. 10.2523/28394-MS
Muskat, M., Taylor, M.O., 1946. "Effect of Reservoir Fluid and Rock Characteristics on Production Histories of Gas-
Drive Reservoirs". Trans. AIME Petroleum Dev. Technol. 165, 78–93.
Noureldien, D. M., El-Banbi, A.H., 2015. "Using Artificial Intelligence in Estimating Oil Recovery Factor". Paper
"SPE175867" Presented at SPE North Africa Tech. Conf. Exhib. held Cairo, Eygpt, 14-16 Sept. 2015. 10.2118/175867-
MS
Ouenes, A., Richardson, S., Weiss, W.W., 1995. "Fractured Reservoir Characterization and Performance Forecasting
Using Geomechanics and Artificial Intelligence". SPE Annu. Tech. Conf. Exhib. 10.2118/30572-MS
Saeed, F., Elkatatny, S. M., and Baarimah, S.O. 2016. "Prediction of Bubble Point Pressure Using Artificial Intelligence
(AI) Techniques", Paper SPE 184208 presented at the SPE Middle East Artificial Lift Conference and Exhibition held
in Manama, Kingdom of Bahrain, 30 November-1 December.
Tariq, Z., Elkatatny, S. M., and Mahmoud, M. A., Abdulraheem, A. Abdelwahab, A. Z. and Woldeamanuel, M. 2017a.
"Estimation of Rock Mechanical Parameters using Artificial Intelligence Tools". Paper ARMA 17-301 presented at
the 51st US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium held in San Francisco, California, USA, 25-28 June.
Tariq, Z., Elkatatny, S. M. and Mahmoud, M. A., Abdulraheem, A. Abdelwahab, A. Z. and Woldeamanuel, M. 2017b.
"Development of New Correlation for Unconfined Compressive Strength for Carbonate Reservoir Using Artificial
Intelligence Techniques". Paper ARMA 17-428 presented at the 51st US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium
held in San Francisco, California, USA, 25-28 June.
Tariq, A., Elkatatny, S. A., Mahmoud, M. A., Zaki, A., Abdulraheem, A. 2017c "A New Approach to Predict Failure
Parameters of Carbonate Rocks using Artificial Intelligence Tools", Paper SPE presented at the SPE Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia Annual Technical Symposium and Exhibition, Dammam, Saudi Arabia, 24-27 April.
Zeeshan, T., Elkatatny, S. M., Mahmoud, M. A., and Abdulazeez, A. 2016a. "A New Artificial Intelligence Based
Empirical Correlation to Predict Sonic Travel Time", SPE IPTC-19005 presented at the International Petroleum
Technology Conference, Bangkok, Thailand, 14-16 November.
Zeeshan, T., Elkatatny, S. M., Mahmoud, M. A., and Abdulazeez, A. 2016b. "A Holistic Approach to Develop New
Rigorous Empirical Correlation for Static Young’s Modulus", Paper SPE 183545 presented at Abu Dhabi International
Petroleum Exhibition & Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 7-10 November.
SPE-187621-MS 13

Appendix A (Mathematical Formulas for Error Calculations)

This appendix summarizes all the formulas used in this work for error calculations.
Absolute Average Percent Error (AAPE)

Eq. A-1

Coefficient of Determination (R2)

Eq. A-2

Maximum Absolute Percent Error (MAE)

Eq. A-3

Root Mean Square Error (RMSE)

Eq. A-4