Slide Presentation ESP - RIFT

ESP-Reliability Information and Failure Tracking System
ESP-RIFTS Joint Industry Project

- An Overview
March 2009
ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009
Slide 1
ESP-RIFTS JIP
The Vision
March 2009
Slide 2
Total Workover Cost vs. ESP Run Life (Onshore)

$40 6%
Total Cost
$35
Servicing Cost
5%
$30 4% $25 True Workover Cost (%Revenue)
True Workover Costs ($millions/ year)
$20
3%
$15 2% $10 1% $5
$0 0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960
0%
Average Operating Period (days)
March 2009
Slide 3
Operators want to
Improve ESP Run-Life in existing applications Improve the chances of success in new applications Extend range and reliability of current ESP technology Get a better understanding of the factors affecting ESP Run-Life
March 2009
Slide 4
The Vision
Access a large set of hard ESP reliability data
To avoid educated guesses
Ensure this reliability data is consistent

To avoid misunderstanding
Incorporate reliability engineering analysis tools

To analyze data appropriately
Benchmark results against other operators

To determine attainable performance targets
Learn from others experience

To find out what you can do to achieve better performance
March 2009
Slide 5
ESP-RIFTS JIP was formed in 1999 ..

ESP Operators joined efforts to pursue.. development of an industry wide Electric Submersible Pump (ESP) - Reliability Information and Failure Tracking System (ESP-RIFTS), which will permit sharing of ESP run-life and failure information among a number of operators. ultimate goals ... [they] are two fold: (1) to accelerate the learning curve associated with new ESP applications; and (2) to increase average ESP run-life and operating range, by transferring knowledge and experience across the industry
March 2009
Slide 6
Implementation Strategy
March 2009
Slide 7
System Concept: Interface

End Users
Multiple users world-wide Internet interface System Maintenance Data Processing Benchmarking Analysis
World-Wide Network
ESP-RIFTS
http://www.esprifts.com
March 2009
Slide 8
System Features ESP-RIFTS

1. Standard terminology (ESP Failure Nomenclature Standard)
Consistency in classifying, recording and storing information
2. Common set of parameters (General Data Set)

Tracked by all Participants in the project
3. Data Input Sheet (DIS)

To assist in data collection, maintenance and upload
4. Procedure to ensure certain standards of data quality 5. Database structure to store the data collected 6. Internet based system
Participants select records of interest Examine the contents of such records Conduct a variety of analyses with them
7. Set of reliability tools to support data analysis

Various run-life measures, reliability functions and distributions Confidence level calculations
8. Model to predict run-life under new conditions (What if)

Calibrated with database information
March 2009
Slide 9
ESP-RIFTS Failure Nomenclature Standard

Standard terminology for classifying, recording and storing ESP failure information,
Leading to consistency in failure analysis performed with data gathered by different operating and service companies
Conforms to (as much as possible):

1) International Standard ISO/DIS 14224 2) API RP 11S1
In general:
Broad definitions and failure attribute classifications were borrowed from the ISO/DIS 14224*; Nomenclature for components, parts and teardown observations were borrowed from the API RP 11S1
*ISO 14224: Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries: Collection and Exchange of Reliability and Maintenance Data for Equipment
March 2009
Slide 10

1. Standard terminology (ESP Failure Nomenclature Standard)
2. Common set of parameters (General and Minimum Data Sets)




Calibrated with database information
March 2009
Slide 11
ESP-RIFTS : MinimumData Set

Field Information Fluid Information Well Information
(1)
Minimum Data Set

List of ~ 37 key parameters
Subset of the General Data Set Developed with the input of the ESP-RIFTS Steering Committee Attempted to be consistent with other recommended parameter lists
SPE ESP Workshop
Parameter
Field Name Field Type Oil Density Bottomhole Temperature (BHT) Well Name Reservoir(s) Type Casing Size
Runtime Data (dates)
Production Period No. Date Started(2) Date Failed / Shutdown ESP System Failed? Primary Failed Item Primary Failure Descriptor
Failure Information
Surface Equipment Data Downhole Equipment Data
Control Panel Type Pump Vendor Pump Type/Model Number of Pump Stages Seal Vendor Seal Type/Model Motor Vendor Motor Type/Model Motor Horsepower Pump Intake /Gas Separator Vendor Pump Intake /Gas Separator Type Cable Vendor Cable Model/Size Pump Seating Depth (PSD)
Operating and Production Data
Total Flow Rate Water Cut (or oil and water rates) Pump Intake Pressure (PIP) Gas-Oil Ratio (GOR) or gas rate Sand Production (Concentration) Scale (None/Light/Moderate/Severe) Asphaltene (None/ Light/Moderate/Severe) CO2 (Concentration) H2S (Concentration) Emulsion (None/Light/Moderate/Severe)
Average data for period or more frequent e.g., monthly or number of intervals (must provide start and end dates of these intervals) during which operating conditions were reasonalby constant.
The Minimum information that an ESP Failure record must have to be considered Complete (as per the ESPRIFTS Qualification Standard)
Number M inimum Data Set Parameters = 37

March 2009 ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009 Slide 12

1. Standard terminology (PCP Failure Nomenclature Standard)




Calibrated with database information Developed for ESP-RIFTS
Data Processing and Qualification

Overview
Participants
Participants send new data & data updates to C-FER Data Processing
FTP
C-FER processes and enters data into the Development Server
Feedback from C-FER to the Participants:

Apparent problems with the data Processed data sent back to Participants in ESP-RIFTS or PCP-RIFTS Data Input Sheet
Data Qualification
Data Collection
Participants conduct analyses via the web Data Analysis Production Server
Processed data and New Web pages are uploaded to the Development Production Server Server
Web
March 2009
Slide 14
Data Qualification
Objectives
Our confidence in any analysis will always be strongly dependant on our perception of the quality of the data collected Goal of data qualification process is to yield quality data; as per the ISO Standard:
Complete in relation to a specification Compatible and Consistent with a standard set of definitions and formats, with other information pertaining to the record, with the principles of PCP technology and with basic laws of engineering/science Accurate truly representative of the PCP installation that it describes
March 2009
Slide 15
Data Input Sheet (DIS)

Microsoft Access based database file with structure similar to ESP-RIFTS master database Developed to assist in data collection and qualification Field level data capture and tracking
March 2009
Slide 16
DIS
Benefits to the Participants
Ability to check and improve their own records before sending the data to C-FER DIS can generate automated reports on level of completeness and inconsistencies Ability to analyze the data shortly after providing data to C-FER DIS allows for quicker data processing, qualification and uploading by C-FER Ability to work in different unit systems SI, British and North Sea units Ability to work in different languages Currently English, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian and French Ability to perform basic Analysis on your own data Run-Life Calculations (e.g. MTTF, Average Runtime), Reliability Functions (e.g. Survival Probability), Failure Rates by ESP Component) and Reporting of Results
March 2009
Slide 17
DIS
Run-Life Calculations
Select either chart or table output format
Results can be saved and printed
March 2009
Slide 18
DIS
Reliability Functions
Grouping Variables:
Company, Division, Field, Well MORE options have been added as well (e.g. Cable AWG Size, Motor Series, Solids?, etc.)
Survival Probability and Hazard Function shown
March 2009
Slide 19
DIS
Failure Rates by ESP Component
Output Options Include:
1. 2. 3. 4.
Field A Field B Field C Field D Field E Field F Field G
Service-Life of Failed Number of Failed ESPs Average Runtime of Failed Failure Rate
Outputs Segregated by:

1. Failed Item Main Component 2. Failed Item Subcomponent 3. Failure Cause: General
Grouping Variables:
Company, Division, Field, Well MORE options will be added soon (e.g. Vendor, Model #), as in the Website
Note: Field names have been masked for confidentiality

DIS
Reporting Enhanced Summary report
Percentage breakdown of all the specific vendors for the ESP motors and pumps in the specific DIS file.
March 2009
Slide 21
Data Processing Locations of Fields in ESP-RIFTS

Note: Company IDs have been masked for confidentiality
BP Chevron ConocoPhillips EnCana ExxonMobil

Kuwait Oil Company Nexen PDVSA Petrobras Repsol YPF
Saudi Aramco Shell Shell PDO Statoil TNK-BP TOTAL
March 2009
Slide 22
Grow of Database as of March 2009

90000 80000 70000 Number of Production Periods 60000 50000 40000 26071 30000 20000 10000 0 7/4/2000 8/2/2002 4/7/2003 10/27/2003 2/3/2004 4/8/2004 10/15/2004 11/6/2006 4/1/2007 3/1/2009 4/25/2000
March 2009
79,754 ESP Installs as of March 2009 17 companies 88 divisions 494 fields 25454 wells
60237
79754 70548 60813
17898 7590 9366 15272 12606 13897
1673 11/20/2000 4/25/2001
1854
3940
11/28/2001
4/22/2002
10/11/2002
12/5/2002
12/9/2004
4/14/2005
11/17/2005
5/19/2006
11/14/2007
6/15/2008
12/3/2008
Date
Slide 23
System Features for ESP-RIFTS





Database Structure
Five main groups of data
Field, Well, Fluid, and Reservoir data
Field, Reservoir, Drilling/Completion, Fluid, Workovers, Operator info.
Run time information

Install, Start, Stop, Pull dates, etc.
Production and Operating Information

Producing rates, GOR, BSW, Fluid Level, Wellhead and Bottom Hole Pressure and Temperature
Failure data
Item(s), Descriptor, Mode, Cause Teardown/Inspection reports, bench test reports, photographs, scanned documents Comments
Equipment data
Motor model, Motor HP, Intake Model, Cable Size, Manufacturer Catalogue information
March 2009
Slide 25
Database Structure (contd)

The link between these groups of data is a Production Period, which includes
One specific ESP or PCP assembly Installed, Started, Stopped and Pulled Serial numbers, completion assembly/sequence in the well and associated surface/downhole equipment Well Service and Production/Operating histories
1000
Production Period
Oil Rate Water Rate WOR 10 Daily Water 100
Workover Workover
Workover
Daily Oil WOR
1 Mar-95 March 2009 Sep-95 Mar-96 Sep-96 Mar-97 Sep-97 Mar-98 Sep-98 Mar-99 Slide 26
Workover





Measures of Run-Life
March 2009
Slide 28
Some Key Concepts

Censoring
For some systems, the RL is not known:
Systems still running Systems pulled for reasons other than a system failure The data is said to be censored
However, proper analysis must consider all data

Considering only the failed items will tend to underestimate the reliability of the system
Therefore, all systems must be tracked:

Pulled systems
Failed Not Failed
Running systems
March 2009
Slide 29
Run-Life Flow Chart
Running
Valid Last Date
# still running
Period Status
# all periods
Completed
ESP System Failed ?
Yes
# failed
# completed
No
# not failed
March 2009
Slide 30
Reliability Functions
March 2009
Slide 31
Survival and Hazard Curves
March 2009
Slide 32
Component Failure Rates
March 2009
Slide 33
Failure Rates of Cables for a Field
FR of New Cable is 4 times smaller than that of Used Cable
March 2009
Slide 34





What-If Model
A Proportional-Hazard-Model based on data in the System Some details presented by C-FER in the 2003 ESPWorkshop Has evolved with time Allows for benchmarking taking into account differences in operating conditions One way to identify key influential factors affecting Run-Life
March 2009
Slide 36
What-If Model (contd.)

Field A Field B Field C
Low R-L but above expectations

March 2009
High R-L but below expectations

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009 Slide 37
Some Analysis Examples Using Website Data and Tools
March 2009
Slide 38
How is My Field doing? - MTTF and Average Run-Life -
Based on Date Installed, MTTF shows continuous improvement Uncertainty bars on MTTF depend on number of failed systems Average Run-Life decrease in 2003-3005 is does not necessarily indicate worse performance Only indicates that more recently installed systems are younger
March 2009
Slide 39
How is My Field doing? - Cumulative and Moving Window metrics -
Based on more recent data (i.e. Moving Window of last 1200 days at each point in time), MTTF and Average Run-Life shows larger improvement than based on all (cumulative) data Not shown (but available): Other R-L metrics used by Operators All have advantages and disadvantages Some are indicators of age of population and not necessarily equipment reliability
March 2009
Slide 40
How is My Field doing? - Primary Failed Items and Failure Mechanisms Periods with Failures at t 90 days Primary Failed Items:
Motors Cables Pumps Intakes Seals 36.8% 21.1% 21.1% 9.2% 9.2%
All Failed Periods Primary Failed Items:

Pumps Motors Intakes Cables Seals Broken Pumps Short Circuited Cable Short Circuited Motor Stuck Pumps Fractured Pumps Phase Unbal. Motors Plugged Pumps 33.8% 22.4% 18.8% 16.5% 6.5% 14.1% 11.5% 10.6% 6.5% 6.2% 4.4% 2.9%
Most Severe Mechanisms:

Short Circuited Motors 14.5% Short Circuited Cables 14.5% Phase Unbal. Motors 9.2% Plugged Pumps 7.9% Broken/Fract. Intakes 7.9% Overheated Motors 4.0% Low Impedance Motors 4.0%
Most Severe Mechanisms:
Failure Mechanisms are different for early and all failures

How is My Field doing?

- Failure Rates (FRs) by ESP system component: evolution with time Note: Dashed red lines represent eye-balled trend.
FRs of Pump Intakes, Seals and Cables show deceasing trend (improving) FR of Motors shows increasing trend FR of Pumps varies with no clear trend Pump and Motors are components currently with higher FRs
How is My Field doing?

- Failure Rates (FRs): effect of scale Moderate Severe
ESP Pumps are affected by severe scaling conditions: +44% higher FRs than for moderate scaling conditions.
Primary Failed Item Scale?
...
ESP Assembly Failure Rate
ESP Cable Failure Rate (106 /day) 130.97 143.57 138.57 9.6%
ESP Motor Failure Rate (106 /day) 180.86 192.79 188.05 6.6%
ESP Pump Failure Rate (106 /day) 224.51 324.05 284.56 44.3%
...
Moderate Severe Total
March 2009
(10-6/day) 12.47 8.2 9.9
... ... ...
ESP ESP Pump ESP Seal Shroud Intake Failure Failure Failure Rate Rate Rate (10 (10 (106 6 6 /day) /day) /day) 155.91 81.07 0 159.97 158.36 2.6% 36.92 54.44 -54.5%
Slide 43
4.1 2.47
How does My Field compare with similar fields? - Search data in the system [Artificial Lift Type]='ESP' AND [Production Role]='Oil Production' AND [Qualification Status]<>'Incomplete-No Dates or Failure Information' AND [Qualification Status]<>'Inconsistent Records' AND [Qualification Status]<>'Historical' AND [Pump Seating Depth MD]>'700' AND [Pump Seating Depth MD]<'1500' AND [CO2 (% by Volume)]>'50' AND [Water Cut]>'70' AND [Total Flow Rate]<='500' AND [Gas Oil Ratio (GOR)]<='300'
My Field*
Periods by Field
Average MTTF Medium Total Rates High WC Medium Sand Medium-High API High CO2 Low GOR Low Temperature Shallow PSD One dominant vendor Onshore
March 2009
Field B has a large # of similar records Other fields have just a few records
Note: Company Names have been masked for confidentiality
Comparison of Cumulative MTTF and Average Run-Life

1443 1318
512
507
B Field
My Field
MTTF is approximately 4 months lower in My Field

Closure
March 2009
Slide 46
Current Project Participants

Project Phases I: II: Nov. 1999 Jul.2000 Aug.2000 Apr. 2001
Project Web Site: online since July 2000
Current Participants
BP ChevronTexaco ConocoPhillips EnCana ExxonMobil Nexen Petrobras Repsol-YPF Shell Intl. StatoilHydro TNK-BP TOTAL
III: V:
May 2001 Apr. 2002 May 2003 Apr. 2004
IV: May 2002 Apr. 2003 VI: May 2004 Apr. 2005 VII: May 2005 Apr. 2006 VIII: May 2006 Apr. 2007 IX: May 2007 Apr. 2008 X: May 2008 Apr. 2009
March 2009 ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009
Slide 47
Benefits to New Participants

Upon joining ESP-RIFTS
1. Immediate access to the system - user accounts will be assigned to a number of New Participant personnel 2. Ability to query the data and conduct analyses - display the results in a number of numerical and graphical formats 3. Improved ability to make good decisions on issues affecting ESP run life 4. Access to about US$ 3,500,000 worth of work conducted in the previous phases of the JIP (phases I - IX) 5. Two-Three day workshop (at a location of choice) to quickly bring the New Participant personnel up to speed 6. Improved understanding of run-life and failure tracking issues and analysis techniques 7. Opportunity to upgrade current ESP failure tracking systems to the ESP-RIFTS standard:
Achieving consistency within own Company Achieving consistency within the group of industry Participants
March 2009
Slide 48
Benefits to New Participants

Long-Term Benefits
1. Business results, which can span over a variety of aspects, including:
Improved chances of overall economic success in new projects
Because there will be less uncertainty in the expected run-life
Reduced production losses in the upcoming years

Because improved rig scheduling will be possible
Improved overall run-life and reduced operational costs

Because best practices can be implemented
2. Business results can start to be obtained as soon as possible

In terms of run-life, the effects of good decisions made at one point in time are only felt in the long term
3. Ability to make direct benchmark comparisons

Within own Companys operations Within the Participants' operations
4. Guidelines for negotiations between the Participant and ESP vendors (e.g., as in alliance situations)
Using benchmarks established with the system
March 2009
Slide 49
Fee Structure
Year 2009/2010 (Phase XI)
New Participant Fee
US$ 48,000 (one-time)
Covers
Initial Development Cost Sharing New Participant Orientations (in-house training) Mapping and Input of Historical Data
JIP Participation Fee

US$48,000
Covers Core Tasks
Data Processing and Qualification Data Analysis (within the limits of the System) Web Site Maintenance Project Steering Committee Meetings (Nov/Dec 2009 and Apr/May 2010) Project Management and Reporting
March 2009
Slide 50
Further Documentation Available

Project web site: http://www.esprifts.com
General Information on the ESP-RIFTS JIP Benefits to New Participants: http://www.esprifts.com/Benefits.pdf Detailed work scope, deliverables, and milestone schedule for Phase X:
http://www.esprifts.com/Workscope%20Phase%20X.pdf
2001 SPE - ESP Workshop Paper

ESP Failures: Can We Talk the Same Language?
2003 SPE - ESP Workshop Paper

Benchmarking ESP Run Life Accounting for Application Differences
For addition information, please contact: Jess E. Chacn

tel: e-mail:
March 2009
(780) 450-8989 ext 224 f.alhanati@cfertech.com

Support Slides
March 2009
Slide 52
Predicting ESP Run Life for New Applications

Questions in field development feasibility studies
What is the expected ESP run life for the field? What are the future service rig requirements for the field? What type of equipment is best suited for a given application?
E.g., Is the run life for wells equipped with VSDs the same as wells equipped with switch boxes? E.g., Are coiled tubing deployed systems less reliable than systems deployed on jointed tubing? If so, how much?
What is the effect of well completion type on ESP run life?

E.g., Should sand control (gravel pack) be used to prevent sand inflow (but perhaps at the cost of lower well productivity)? Would the ESP run-life be acceptable if the sand is produced?
What operating practices/conditions are best?

E.g., Should the wells be produced at a flowing bottomhole pressure that is above the bubble point pressure to avoid failures associated with free gas?
March 2009
Slide 53
Early Stages of a Feasibility Study

How ESP run-life affects the project economics?
Offshore Platform Example
20 Wells Average oil production per well: Average intervention cost: Average equipment cost: Average workover & waiting time 1200 bopd 150 k (10 days @15k/day) 100 k 60 days
Onshore Example
100 wells Average oil production per well: Average intervention cost: Average equipment cost: Average workover & waiting time: 200 bopd 20 k 50 k 7 days
March 2009
Slide 54
Total Workover Cost vs. ESP Run Life (Offshore)

$700 40%
Total Cost
$600
Servicing Cost
35%
30% $500
25% $400
True Workover Cost (%Revenue)
20%
$300 15%
$200 10%
$100
5%
$0 0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960
0%
March 2009
Slide 55
Total Workover Cost vs. ESP Run Life (Onshore)

$40 6%
Total Cost
$35
Servicing Cost
5%
$30 4% $25 True Workover Cost (%Revenue)
$20
3%
$15 2% $10 1% $5
$0 0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960
0%
March 2009
Slide 56

Slide Presentation ESP - RIFT

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Slide Presentation ESP - RIFT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ESP-Reliability Information and Failure Tracking System

ESP-RIFTS Joint Industry Project

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

Total Workover Cost vs. ESP Run Life (Onshore)

$30 4% $25 True Workover Cost (%Revenue)

True Workover Costs ($millions/ year)

$0 0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960

Average Operating Period (days)

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

Ensure this reliability data is consistent

Incorporate reliability engineering analysis tools

Benchmark results against other operators

Learn from others experience

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

ESP-RIFTS JIP was formed in 1999 ..

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

System Concept: Interface

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

System Features ESP-RIFTS

2. Common set of parameters (General Data Set)

3. Data Input Sheet (DIS)

7. Set of reliability tools to support data analysis

8. Model to predict run-life under new conditions (What if)

ESP-RIFTS Failure Nomenclature Standard

Conforms to (as much as possible):

System Features ESP-RIFTS

2. Common set of parameters (General and Minimum Data Sets)

3. Data Input Sheet (DIS)

7. Set of reliability tools to support data analysis

8. Model to predict run-life under new conditions (What if)

ESP-RIFTS : MinimumData Set

Minimum Data Set

Runtime Data (dates)

Surface Equipment Data Downhole Equipment Data

Operating and Production Data

Number M inimum Data Set Parameters = 37

System Features ESP-RIFTS

2. Common set of parameters (General Data Set)

3. Data Input Sheet (DIS)

7. Set of reliability tools to support data analysis

8. Model to predict run-life under new conditions (What if)

Data Processing and Qualification

Feedback from C-FER to the Participants:

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

Data Input Sheet (DIS)

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

Select either chart or table output format

Results can be saved and printed

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

Survival Probability and Hazard Function shown

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

Outputs Segregated by:

Note: Field names have been masked for confidentiality

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

Data Processing Locations of Fields in ESP-RIFTS

BP Chevron ConocoPhillips EnCana ExxonMobil

Kuwait Oil Company Nexen PDVSA Petrobras Repsol YPF