7th European Electric Submersible Pump Round Table

Aberdeen Section

ESP Monitoring – Where’s your speedometer?

A.J. (Sandy) Williams, Julian Cudmore, Stephen Beattie (Phoenix Petroleum Services)

Abstract

It is estimated that some two percent of all electrical submersible pumps (ESPs) in the world have
some form of downhole sensor installed. This is a very small sensor population in relation to the
number of ESPs. Reliable sensor technology has been available for a number of years and yet the
majority of ESPs do not have sensors installed. Part of the reason that sensors are not installed and
used more widely is because of the outdated techniques used by ESP manufacturers to diagnose and
troubleshoot ESP performance.

Operators can use a downhole sensor to obtain a direct measurement of ESP and well performance.
Direct accurate measurements are of more value than a simulated or calculated value. This paper will
outline the direct measurements that can be taken and illustrate how they can be used, real-time, to
increase production, diagnose well and ESP performance and achieve protection and control of the
ESP system to extend ESP runlife.

The use of direct measurements of performance, control, analysis and design are the key steps in most
continuous improvement processes (figure 1). Use of measured data from a downhole sensor is the
first step in implementing a continuous improvement process for the ESP-produced well. However, to
benefit from this data we need to change the way we design, operate, troubleshoot and optimise ESPs
and use pressures rather than electrical parameters. This paper will discuss how monitoring of ESPs
has evolved and identify the steps that need to be taken to make use of the data obtained from a
downhole sensor.

Case histories will be presented that illustrate how sensor data has been applied to:

1. identify opportunities to increase production;

2. identify wellbore damage following a workover;
3. demonstrate the importance of fluid properties on ESP design and well production.

This paper presents the case history data and subsequent well analysis using the gradient traverse plot
technique.1

Introduction

This paper describes three case histories that demonstrate how downhole sensor data can be used to
determine information that is vital to understanding and improving well and ESP performance. The
case histories and consequent benefits were achieved as a result of using the data from the downhole
sensor and applying an analysis technique that considers the well as a hydraulic system.

1
Most ESP analysis, troubleshooting and control systems are based on the use of electrical parameters
to predict ESP and well performance. This paper will discuss the evolution of ESP monitoring and
why our industry still uses electrical parameters to monitor ESPs. A discussion of the philosophy of
measurement will be undertaken and related to the benefit of using measured pressures to diagnose
performance of the ESP produced well.

The use of directly measured pressures and temperatures and their benefits for control of the ESP
system and prevention of premature system failure will be highlighted.

Well modelling techniques will then be discussed in relation to the ESP-produced well and the
relative merits of considering the well as a hydraulic system.

The economics related to the cost of a downhole sensor will be considered in relation to the benefit
that can be derived from the use of the sensor.

Philosophy of Measurement

The primary reason for running a downhole sensor is to get an accurate real-time measurement of an
ESP’s operating parameters. Before we consider measurement of ESP operating parameters, let’s
consider an analogy for how measurements can be taken and the relative value of the type of
measurement. Consider a car travelling from town A to town B. Supposing we wish to know the
velocity of the car, there are a number of ways this can be determined: if we know the distance from
A to B we can calculate the velocity based on the time to cover the distance (equivalent to average
velocity); a police speed camera can be used to determine the speed of the vehicle (instantaneous
velocity); or using a sophisticated onboard computer we can calculate the velocity of the vehicle
based on the fuel consumption of the vehicle. The reality is that none of these methods are required
because we have a simple device called a speedometer, which gives us a real-time indication of
velocity at any point in time. The principle here is if you want to know something that can be
measured directly then measure it!

ESP Monitoring & Control - History

The evolution of monitoring in relation to ESPs is such that in domestic land operation in the USA,
when running an ESP direct on line (i.e. no variable speed drive), the only variable once the pump had
been installed was wellhead pressure. The challenge to the operator was to design a pump and get
maximum production without creating a pump-off situation. In order to determine the drawdown of
the pump in the wellbore, fluid shots were taken to determine the fluid level. Fluid shots are a
valuable tool in the absence of any other technology but can be inaccurate due to effects such as
foamy crude or completion configuration, i.e. a liner top. (Figure 2 shows a graph of measured
bottom hole pressure versus time for a fluid shot and downhole sensor2). As ESP control systems
evolved it became possible to protect the ESP by causing a pump shutdown based on underload and
overload current settings – indicative of an adverse operating condition.

The next step in the evolution of ESP technology was the variable speed drive (VSD): this device
gives operators an additional method by which to control ESP operation. The main advantage of the
VSD is that it allows the operator to change the speed of the ESP to account for uncertainty in
productivity index of the well or changing well conditions. These systems are still set up to trip on
overload and underload settings.

The next major landmark in the evolution of ESP monitoring and control was the development of
downhole sensors. Initial attempts to apply downhole sensor technology, as with most new
technologies, were unsuccessful. The challenges to producing a sensor that could operate in

2
conjunction with an ESP were downhole temperature, communication method (up the ESP power
cable or separate line) and power quality. However, as an industry, over time, we have developed
reliable downhole monitoring systems that routinely outlive the ESP system – some systems, having
outlived the ESP several times, have been re-run as many as five times.

ESP Monitoring and Control - Today

Initial attempts to develop sensors focused on measuring one pressure and one temperature, usually at
the pump intake. Sensors now exist that can measure intake pressure, discharge pressure, downhole
flowrate, intake temperature, motor winding temperature, discharge temperature, system vibration and
electrical integrity of the system. The latest development in respect of performing downhole
measurements around an ESP hinges on the application of fibre optic technology.

Table 1 provides a summary of the types of monitoring that may be performed in relation to an ESP
completion.

Of the two percent of ESPs with downhole sensors installed, very few sensors are used for more than
obtaining an accurate pump intake pressure (Pi). In reality very few operators use this parameter to
control the ESP and maintain a constant pump intake pressure (Pi), thereby increasing production.
Using existing technology this could be easily achieved.

Through the use of ESP operating parameters such as discharge pressure (Pd), intake temperature
(Ti), motor temperature (Tm) and vibration (Vib) it is also possible to understand the well and ESP as
a system. Such understanding leads to better system design and a continuous improvement process,
based on measured known data.

The reality is that even when the most sophisticated downhole sensors are used to measure ESP
operating parameters, these parameters are not used to best advantage. Current (no pun intended!)
ESP analysis or monitoring is still based on electrical parameters (amps). Using electrical parameters
to analyse ESP performance is analogous to the calculation of velocity based on fuel consumption in
the example of how to measure a car’s velocity.

As an industry we have not fully adapted to perform ESP diagnosis and analysis based on
directly measured parameters.

This fact is borne out by the revelation that the majority of control systems for ESPs are still set up to
control on amps. Systems that have downhole sensors installed are set up without any form of
protection, based on the measured parameters (pressures and temperatures). See figure3 for an
example of an ESP failure which could have been prevented had the sensor parameters been used.

The benefit of using downhole sensor parameters to protect the ESP has been proven. As soon as one
operator started using the measured ESP parameters to initiate pump shutdowns, when an abnormal
operating condition was experienced, pump runlife in the field doubled! Another operator was able to
demonstrate a value of $25MM in terms of prevented workovers and increased production for an
associated sensor purchase cost of $2MM - compelling evidence for the value of ESP monitoring
using downhole sensors!

Production Optimisation

Figure 4 shows a typical pressure response in a well with an ESP installed. If the pump intake and
discharge pressures are not known and instead guessed, simulated or measured inaccurately, it
changes the whole pressure response within the wellbore. Knowledge of these values is required to

3
ensure that we understand the ESP operating conditions, namely that the pump is optimally sized and
that production is optimised.

From a production standpoint the most important parameters are the pressures across the ESP: after all
the function of the ESP is to add energy and cause a pressure change in the wellbore to allow the well
to flow at a higher rate. If we measure Pi and Pd we know the exact pressure response in the wellbore
and can therefore consider the wellbore as a hydraulic system. When ESP discharge and intake
pressures are known and used in conjunction with the ESP performance curve they can be used to
validate or determine a number of useful operating conditions such as: validate fluid properties; plot
pressure across the pump (dP) vs. frequency; infer downhole flowrate; and calculate bottomhole
flowing pressure. Table 2 provides a summary of the information that can be gleaned using two
measured pressures.

As an industry we tend to understand a naturally flowing well in terms of pressure and depth. If we
want to analyse a naturally flowing well we use well test data, pressure information from a flowing
gradient survey and a nodal analysis software package. The pressure and flowrate information provide
known measured data points to validate our software model. Our methodology is to validate our fluid
property assumptions by using our software to match a predicted pressure to a measured pressure and
then, having accurately validated the model, we can extrapolate it to interpret changing wellbore
conditions. The important point of this course of action is that we, in validating the fluid properties for
the produced fluids, understand and model the well from a hydraulic standpoint (pressure and depth).

When we use an ESP in a well we tend to stick the pump in the wellbore and immediately start to
consider the well response in terms of head and amps. Neither of these parameters is a direct
measurement of well performance! If we consider the traditional approach to ESP design and well
analysis, the wellbore pressure response (tubing flow regime) is converted into feet of head. Electrical
parameters are then used to calculate how much work the motor is doing and therefore how much
head the pump is producing. The well pressure response is then plotted on a flow versus head curve
for the particular ESP, with a cross representing the operating point of the system. This technique
works after a fashion and was necessary when it was the only tool available. Today you will find that
the majority of ESP company personnel still talk about static and dynamic fluid levels and total
dynamic head rather than static reservoir pressure, bottomhole flowing pressure or pump dP. The
reality is a better method exists.

ESP Monitoring and Control – The Way Ahead

As operators and ESP related service companies, our challenge is to progress to considering ESP-
produced wells as hydraulic systems. This involves directly measuring the performance of the ESP in
terms of pressure. Having obtained the measurements, we can directly control the ESP, diagnose ESP
performance and optimise production. After all, the basis of continuous improvement processes is to
measure what you do and try to implement improvements, based on the measured information. The
best way to improve our application of ESPs is to measure ESP performance (speedometer!) using a
downhole sensor.

To benefit from the data that can be obtained from downhole sensors we need to change the way our
industry looks at design, optimisation and troubleshooting of ESP systems. If we consider the ESP to
be the cause of a pressure change in the wellbore and then analyse the well from a hydraulic
standpoint, we can consider the well using the same technique as we would for a free flowing well.
The benefit of this approach is that we consider the ESP-produced well as a hydraulic system and shift
the focus from the ESP to the producing well – where the barrels (hence $) come from. Commercial
software currently exists that can perform analysis based on ESP pressure response in the wellbore.
Such software tends to be better for analysis and troubleshooting of ESP produced wells than the
programs used by ESP manufacturers.

4
From a control standpoint switching to control on intake pressure makes more sense than controlling
on frequency or amp load: after all intake pressure can be controlled, in relation to the bubble point, to
maintain a constant bottomhole pressure above a pressure that would cause excessive sand production
or just to maintain a constant intake pressure – amps merely correspond to the work of the motor and
frequency to the speed of the motor. It is interesting to note that when an ESPCP system is run with a
downhole sensor, it is often set up to maintain a constant Pi rather than a constant RPM – why should
PCPs be different from ESPs in this respect?

In addition to maximising well production, through the use of sensor data, it is possible to protect the
ESP using surface control systems. Applying such control systems using appropriate parameters to
control provides a method to prevent “automatically” a pump from being operated in a condition that
could result in equipment failure. To facilitate this the surface control system has to be configured to
cause an alarm or shut down (trip) the pump when such a condition is detected.

The rationale as to whether a pump trip is used in preference to an alarm will be a function of
location, operating philosophy and the availability of personnel to respond to an alarm scenario. For
example on an isolated land application, where no one is available to respond to an alarm, it would be
more sensible to trip the pump, whereas on an offshore platform an alarm may be the preferred
approach.

The following provides a summary of the key parameters that can be measured using a downhole
sensor, with the associated control philosophy for each:

Pump Intake Pressure (Pi) should be used to prevent pump-off or to prevent the well from being
drawn down below a given pressure (bubble point or a minimum bottomhole flowing pressure). For
example, Pi may be controlled at above 200 psi in a well where gas breakout becomes excessive and
causes pump operating problems below this value. In this case the surface control system would be
configured to trigger an alarm at 200 psi intake pressure and to trip the pump if the intake pressure
reduced further to 175 psi.

Pump Discharge Pressure (Pd) will immediately respond to changes in specific gravity of the
produced fluid (watercut or gas), changes in surface pressure (wellhead) and can be used to prevent a
pump being deadheaded or operated in a low flow scenario. The setting of the trip/alarm should be
based on a calculated maximum value for Pd during normal operating conditions or the value can be
set at normal operating Pd plus a margin (for example 50 psi). The value can also be determined
practically in the field by performing a shut-in test, i.e. observing the measured Pd and setting the trip
level below this value.

Knowledge of both pressures gives an exact knowledge of the work done by the pump at any moment
in time and is of particular use in complex ESP situations, such as high viscosity fluids or gassy wells.

Pump Pressure Differential (dP) can be used to ensure that the ESP is run within range. For a given
pump frequency and with a known density of produced fluids, a minimum and maximum pump dP
corresponding to the upthrust and downthrust range on the ESP can be set to ensure that the pump is
operated in range. Consideration of figure 5 will illustrate this concept by demonstrating a pump
operating ‘in range’: the minimum and maximum operating points correspond to a head of 3774 ft and
1957ft at the operating frequency. The produced fluids in this case have average specific gravity
(s.g.) of 0.95, by using the relationship:

dP (psi)= Head (ft) x s.g. x 0.433 (psi/ft)

A minimum and maximum dP of 1552 and 805 psi is calculated in accordance with the efficiency
range of the pump. These values would be programmed into the surface control system so that an
alarm would trigger if pump dP increased above 1552 psi; a pump trip could also be set if pump dP

5
continued to increase, an indication that the pump is moving more into a low flow or potentially
damaging downthrust condition.

Motor Temperature (Tm) can be motor winding temperature or motor oil temperature. Where
possible it is preferable to monitor motor winding temperature, as the winding temperature always
increases more rapidly in response to ESP problems. The trip/alarm should be set to activate at approx
20 deg C above normal operating temperature.

Pump intake temperature (Ti) acts as a back-up to motor temperature and would be set to trip/alarm
at the same value as the motor temperature reading. However, motor temperature is almost always
likely to respond first. Changing intake temperature can also be an indicator of change in well
flowrate.

Vibration (Vib) is an indirect measurement of ESP performance since, like amps, it includes
mechanical (e.g. sand, wear), electrical (e.g. frequency) and hydraulic (e.g. gas, viscosity)
components3. It is thus difficult to interpret an exact, absolute value of vibration – rather the trend of
vibration is important and can indicate a range of problem conditions or change in normal operating
conditions such as:

• change in frequency (pump speed) and operation around resonant frequencies;

• change in wellhead pressure (by surface choke closure);
• increase in well watercut and indication of emulsions;
• onset or increase in solids (sand/scale) production and tracking pump wear;
• start of gas locking;
• change of pump/motor temperatures caused by severe upthrust/downthrust operation.

Generally vibration would only be set up as an alarm function.

Other trips can also be set on current leakage or flow. Additionally a backspin relay can be used to
prevent re-start of the pump following a shutdown while fluid is still draining through the pump.

If the surface control system displays an alarm or the pump trips, it is important to understand why the
pump tripped. Prior to restarting a pump the effort should be taken to examine the logged sensor data
to determine the cause of the shut down. Many premature pump failures could be avoided if the time
were taken to understand why a trip or alarm occurred.

To use such parameters effectively to control and protect the ESP, an input card is usually required on
the VSD to allow the pump to be controlled real-time using parameters measured by the downhole
sensor. This simple step can have a significant effect on ESP runlife. Control of the ESP using
measured parameters in combination with a change in approach to consider the ESP-produced well as
a hydraulic system can provide the operator with longer runlife, increased production and valuable
information for design of future systems – a simple method to provide continuous improvement for
ESPs.

Economics

The decision not to run a downhole sensor with an ESP inevitably arises from the cost! A reliable
downhole sensor can cost anything between $20,000 - $80,000, what some may judge to be a high
cost! Consideration of table 3 shows that for a production rate of 1000 bopd at an oil price of $10/bbl
a sensor can pay for itself in between 2 and 8 days. (Note: this takes no account of the rig cost,
replacement ESP cost nor deferred production cost of a failed ESP). If used to control the ESP the
downhole sensor provides opportunity to prevent failure of the ESP, which can prolong life of the

6
system. If the downhole sensor data is also used to analyse the ESP system and optimise production,
the value of the sensor is increased further.

Case Histories

The following case histories are all based on analysis of data that was obtained from a downhole
sensor. The gradient traverse plots, presented as part of the analysis, was produced using a simplistic
excel based nodal analysis program. All Phoenix field engineers are trained in the use of such
software and are expected to perform an analysis during well start-up or on a regular basis to ensure
optimum use of the data from the downhole sensor. Calculations using such software can also form
the basis for setting up of control and protection systems on the ESP.

The following case histories have been selected because they illustrate examples of opportunities for
using the data from the downhole sensor to increase production.

Case History 1 - Opportunity to upsize the ESP

This example is illustrative of a field that had been produced for several years using ESPs. Some
sensors had been run in the field but had proven to be unreliable. As such, most of the ESPs were
designed, analysed and optimised on the basis of electrical parameters and fluid shots rather than
reliable sensor data. The operator of the field believed that the reservoir should be capable of
supporting higher production rates. By using a sensor to measure intake and discharge pressure it was
possible to analyse the ESP performance, determine the inflow characteristics of the well and predict
production rates using a larger ESP.

Figure 6 shows the results of the analysis and indicates that the ESP is operating in ‘upthrust’ while
producing at a rate of 9435 bfpd. The well has relatively high water cut and therefore is insensitive to
the bubble point of the crude and gas at the pump intake. A prediction indicated that the well could be
produced with a larger ESP, reducing the bottom hole flowing pressure, to produce an additional 3000
bfpd.

A series of workovers was implemented to increase ESP size in the field. In addition to the benefits of
increased production from the wells, the downhole sensor is used to control the pump, prevent a
pump-off situation and shutdown the pump in the case of an operating condition, such as temperature
or pressure outwith the normal envelope of the pump.

Figure 7 shows the results on an analysis performed on the same well after it had been worked over to
increase the pump size. The well is now producing at 12265 bfpd, a production increase of 2830 bfpd.
Note that in this case the well is being produced at higher wellhead pressure than used for the
prediction. If the wellhead pressure were lowered the well would be capable of producing the
additional 3000bfpd, per the prediction.

Case History 2 – Identification of production interval damage

An ESP in the well in question had run for three years at a rate of approximately 6000 BFPD before
the pump failed. Following a workover to replace the ESP the well was producing at 1900 stb/d, the
operator and the ESP manufacturer suspected a pump problem. Using information from a downhole
sensor measuring two pressures, it was possible to confirm that the pump was operating correctly for
the number of stages and operating frequency, albeit at a lower flowrate for the expected productivity
of the well. A calculation of inflow characteristics indicated a PI of 1.07 stb/d, much lower than
expected for this well. Wellbore damage was believed to be the cause of loss of productivity. An acid

7
job was recommended to remove the damage and restore production to the 6000 bfpd that had been
achieved previously.

Case History 3 – The effect of friction on pump sizing, flowrate and tubing size.

The previous examples have been simplistic, in that they have demonstrated an ability to increase
production, provided we look beyond what is happening in the ESP: consider the well from a
hydraulic standpoint and consider the well’s productivity. This example is more complicated and
illustrates the importance of understanding well fluid properties to size the ESP and also identifies the
opportunity for increased production from this well as a free flowing well or one with a larger ESP
and larger tubing.

Consideration of figure 8 shows a trend plot of downhole sensor parameters. It can be observed that
while the pump is running, a pump dP of approx 450 psi is created. The well is producing at a rate of
5750 stbl/d, the pump is operating in range and all parameters are within a normal operating
environment. Figure 9 shows operating point in relation to the pump curve.

A few hours later the trend plot shows that the pump has shut down. In this scenario the well is free
flowing but a pressure drop of 54 psi occurs across the ESP, due to the pressure drop of fluid flowing
through the ESP (figure 10). Flowrate is estimated to be 2280 bfpd. However, if a means of removing
the pressure drop through the pump could be achieved using an auto flow sub (figure 11) or a sliding
sleeve, an additional 1000 stbl/d could be achieved.

Reconsidering the scenario with the pump running, a ‘happy pump’ with stable electrical parameters
operating in the middle of its operating curve, it is worth considering the well from a hydraulic
standpoint. Analysis shows that a production rate of 5750 bfpd is being achieved through 3 ½”
production tubing with a frictional pressure drop of 274psi. For a well with a PI of 33 stbl/day/psi this
represents a ‘large’ loss in production.

A predictive analysis performed using a larger ESP and a larger tubing size (4 ½” instead of 3 ½”)
demonstrated that a production increase of 2150 bfpd could be achieved. See figure 12.

This case history illustrates multiple opportunities for production increase. Firstly the well can be free
flowed, bypassing the pump to gain an additional 1000 bfpd. Secondly, using a larger pump and larger
tubing the well can produce an additional 2150 bfpd. This example illustrates the importance of
considering the well and ESP as a hydraulic system. Considering the producing well in this manner
identifies opportunities to increase production, based on well inflow capability: a traditional approach
of just looking at the ESP would be unlikely to identify such opportunities for production increase.

Conclusions

Monitoring of ESPs using downhole sensor data provides an opportunity to diagnose ESP
performance from a hydraulic standpoint - which relates directly to well production and improved
ESP reliability. Downhole sensor data provides an immediate direct accurate measurement of ESP
performance (analogous to the speedometer in your car).

Reliance purely on electrical parameters for the interpretation and diagnosis of ESP performance is an
impediment to the progress of the application of ESPs. Consideration of the well, produced using an
ESP as a hydraulic system rather than just an electrical system, can further the application of ESP
technology.

8
ESP runlife can be improved if surface control systems are set-up to control the ESP, based on
parameters directly measured using a downhole sensor.

The cost of a downhole sensor in relation to the opportunities for increased production, prevention of
an ESP failure or deferred production in relation to the sensor cost is minimal.

The application and reliability of ESP technology can be improved if the ESP manufacturers adopt the
‘continuous improvement process’ of using measured pressure data, in addition to using electrical
parameters, to understand and interpret well performance.

References
1. Williams, A.J., “Demsytifying ESPs: A technique to make your ESP talk to you” presented at
6th European Electric Submersible Pump Round Table Feb 15-16 of 2000.
2. Moffat, T., Conn, T., Applications of Real-Time Well Monitoring Systems presented at
Southwestern conference, Lubbock February 2000.
3. Baillie, A.R., Williams, A.J., Cudmore, J., “Vibration: How can we use it to prolong runlife?”
SPE Electric Submersible Pump Workshop Houston, Texas April 25-27 2001.

9
Tables & Figures

Figure 1 – Representation of a continuous improvement process.

2500
Bottomhole Pressure
From acoustic fluid shots
2000

1500

1000

500
Error
Actual Bottomhole
Pressure
0
Jun/1 Jun/25 Jul/20 Aug/13 Sep/7

Figure 2 – Actual well data showing discrepancies between true bottomhole pressure and calculated bottomhole
pressure from acoustic fluid shots.

10
 Level of Monitoring
Electrical parameters
Fluid levels monitored
Basic sensor (Pi and Ti)
Advanced sensor (Pi, Pd,
Ti, Tm, Vib)
What is measured
ESP controlled diagnosed and
operated purely on electrical
parameters
Occasional sonic logs taken to
determine intake pressure
Accurate intake pressure known
realtime.
Accurate determination of
pump ǻP, motor temperature,
system vibration.
Benefit
Lowest equipment cost. Least
added value
Intake pressure measurement
inaccurate, potential for
analysis based on incorrect
data.
Potential for control on Pi but
rarely done.
Complete toolkit to perform
analysis and diagnosis of well
and pump performance. Most
Value

Table 1 – Levels of monitoring.

Point at which the pump should have

been tripped.

3500 240

3000 Motor Oil Temp Intake Temp

190

Temp (Deg F) / Current Leakage (mA x 1000) /

2500

140
2000
Discharge Pressure

Vib (g x 25)
Pressure
(psia)

1500
90

Intake Pressure
1000

Vibration
40

500

0 -10
19:12 20:24 21:36 22:48 00:00 01:12 02:24 03:36

Figure 3 – A preventable ESP failure. This pump could have been shutdown using intake pressure, discharge
pressure or motor temperature parameters.

11
 0
From inflow
Measured data
Res. pressure
2,000

True Vertical Depth (ft TVD)

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

PRES
12,000
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
Pressure (psig)

Figure 4 – A typical pressure response in an ESP produced well.

• Validate PVT
• Watercut
Above the pump • Fluid specific gravity at pump discharge
• Tubing GOR
• Measure friction effect

• Validate Q, frequency, number stages

• Measure viscosity and emulsion effects
Across the pump • Fluid specific gravity at the pump intake
• % free gas at the pump intake
• Obtain operating point for pump curve

• Calculate bottomhole Pwf

Below the pump
• Obtain PI or Pr

Table 2 – Summary of calculated / derived parameters that can be obtained from the gradient
traverse plot.

12
 7,000
Head (50 Hz)
Head (60 Hz)
Head (70 Hz)
6,000
Head (w / w ear)
Head at op. freq.
Range (min/max)
5,000 Op. Point

Total head (feet)

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Average pum p flow rate (rb/day)

Figure 5 – An ESP pump curve showing the efficiency range of the pump in relation to the operating point.

Sensor Purchase Cost Days to Payout

$20,000 2.00
$30,000 3.00
$40,000 4.00
$50,000 5.00
$60,000 6.00
$70,000 7.00
$80,000 8.00

Table 3 – Economics of sensor cost vs. time to payout based on a 1000 bopd and a price of $10/bbl.

0 12,000
From inflow Head (50 Hz)
500 Measured data Head (60 Hz)
Res. pressure Head (70 Hz)
10,000 Head (w/ CFs)
1,000
Head at op. freq.
Range (min/max)
1,500 Op. Point
True Vertical Depth (ft TVD)

8,000
Total head (feet)

2,000

2,500 6,000

3,000

4,000
3,500

4,000
2,000
4,500
PRES
5,000 0
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000
Pressure (psig) Average pump flowrate (rb/day)

Figure 6 – An ESP running in upthrust producing approximately 9435 bfpd.

13
 0 12,000
From inflow Head (50 Hz)
500 Measured data Head (60 Hz)
Res. pressure Head (70 Hz)
10,000 Head (w/ CFs)
1,000
Head at op. freq.
Range (min/max)
1,500 Op. Point
True Vertical Depth (ft TVD)

8,000

Total head (feet)

2,000

2,500 6,000

3,000

4,000
3,500

4,000
2,000
4,500
PRES
5,000 0
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000
Pressure (psig) Average pump flowrate (rb/day)

Figure 7 – The same well as previous example with a larger ESP producing approximately 12265 bfpd.

3200 400

Discharge pressure

3100 350

3000 300
Motor oil temperature
Pressures (psia)

Temperatures (deg F)
2900 250

Intake temperature

2800 200

2700 150
Intake pressure

2600 100
30/01/01 00:00 01/02/01 00:00 03/02/01 00:00 05/02/01 00:00 07/02/01 00:00 09/02/01 00:00 11/02/01 00:00

Figure 8 – Example showing a well being produced using an ESP, the ESP is then switched off. The well
continues to produce naturally, a pressure drop across the ESP can be observed. The arrows on the plot
represent points where the well was analysed.

14
 0 3,000
From inflow Head (50 Hz)
Measured data Head (60 Hz)
1,000 Res. pressure Head (70 Hz)
2,500 Head (w/ CFs)
Head at op. freq.
Range (min/max)
2,000
Op. Point
True Vertical Depth (ft TVD)

2,000

Total head (feet)

3,000

1,500

4,000

1,000
5,000

500
6,000

PRES
7,000 0
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000
Pressure (psig) Average pump flowrate (rb/day)

Figure 9 – Analysis showing the ESP running normally. The well is producing 5750 bfpd.

0
From inflow
Measured data
1,000 Res. pressure

2,000
True Vertical Depth (ft TVD)

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000 PRES
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
Pressure (psig)

Figure 10 – Analysis showing the well producing naturally. A pressure drop of 54psi is observed across the
shutdown ESP. This pressure drop accounts for a loss in production of 1000 bfpd.

15
Figure 11 – An auto flow sub, which can be used above the ESP to eliminate pressure drop through ESP when
the well is free flowing.

0 2,500
From inflow Head (50 Hz)
Measured data Head (60 Hz)
1,000 Res. pressure Head (70 Hz)
Head (w/ CFs)
2,000 Head at op. freq.
Range (min/max)
2,000
Op. Point
True Vertical Depth (ft TVD)

Total head (feet)

1,500
3,000

4,000
1,000

5,000

500
6,000

PRES
7,000 0
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000
Pressure (psig) Average pump flowrate (rb/day)

Figure 12 – Prediction showing the effect of a larger tubing diameter and larger ESP. The predicted production
rate is 7900 bfpd.

16