Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
Selection of the most economical artificial lift method is
necessary for the operator to realize the maximum potential
from developing any oil or gas field. Historically the methods
used to select the method of lift for a particular field have
varied broadly across the industry, including
Determining what methods will lift at the desired rates
and from the required depths.
Evaluating lists of advantages and disadvantages.
Use of expert systems to both eliminate and select
systems.
Evaluation of initial costs, operating costs, production
capabilities, etc. using economics as a tool of selection.
This paper will highlight some of the methods commonly
used for selection and also include some examples of costs
and profits over time calculated to the present time as a tool of
selection. The operator should consider all of these methods
when selecting a method of artificial lift, especially for a
large, long-term project.
Introduction
In artificial lift design the engineer is faced with matching
facility constraints, artificial lift capabilities and the well
productivity so that an efficient lift installation results. Energy
efficiency will partially determine the cost of operation, but
this is only one of many factors to be considered.
In the typical artificial lift problem, the type of lift has
already been determined and the engineer has the problem of
applying that system to the particular well. The more basic
question, however, is how to determine what is the proper
type of artificial lift to apply in a given field.
Each of the four major types of artificial lift will be
SPE 52157
SPE 52157
SPE 52157
gypsum or scale.
With this system, the rotating rods would wear and also
wear the casing. The rotating rods would wind up on start
and unwind on the shut-down. Rotating rods must be sealed
at the surface and many installations would have oil leaks at
the surface.
To alleviate the problems with the conventional rotating
rod PCP systems, the ESPCP system is being made available.
This is not a new system. It has been run in Russia for a
number of years and also was available from ODI (ESP
vendor) a number of years ago. The new ESPCP system
(Figures 9-10) has a number of advantages over the rotating
sucker rod systems.
As shown in Figures 9 and 10, the PCP pump is located on
top of the assembly. There is problem of rotating the eccentric
rotor with the motor shaft because of possible vibration hence
a flexible connection is used. There is a seal section as in an
ESP assembly to protect the underlying motor from well-bore
fluids and also to accommodate and thrust in the internal
thrust bearing. Because the PCP usually turns around 3-600
rpm and the ESP motor turns around 3500 rpm under load,
there must be a way of reducing speed before the shaft
connects to the PCP.
Methods in use from the various manufacturers include
using a gear box to reduce the 3500 rpm to acceptable speeds
or using higher pole motors with lower synchronous speeds to
allow the PCP to turn at operational speeds. The motor is
located on the bottom of the assembly so fluids can pass the
motor and provide cooling as in the conventional ESP. Since
the ESPCP is not rod connected, it can be run into deviated or
horizontal wells. Some manufacturers refer to this system as
the PCSPS (Progressive Cavity Submersible Pump System) or
the ESPCP (Electrical Submersible Progressive Cavity Pump).
Advantages.
The pumping system can be run into deviated and
horizontal wells.
The pump handles solids in production well.
The pump handles viscous production well.
Several of the components are off the shelf ESP
components.
The production rates can be varied with use of a
variable speed controller (VSC).
There is one modification of this system whereby the
pump can be wire-lined out of the hole leaving the motor and
the rest of the system behind. This is desirable because the
pump is likely to have the shortest run life.
Disadvantages.
The unit does not tolerate heat due to the softening
of the stator material.
Gas must be separated to increase efficiency. It will
not gas lock but if ingesting large amounts of gas
continuously, or if pumped off, it will overheat and
damage will occur to the stator.
SPE 52157
If the unit pumps off the well, the stator will likely
be permanently damaged.
The gearbox is another source of failure if well-bore
fluids or solids leak inside.
This pump is suited for deviated wells and can be run in
most locations of a horizontal well.
Summary. If you have a low pressure well with solids
and/or heavy oil, and the well temperature is not high, then
you could consider an ESPCP. If this is offshore or where
pulling the well is very expensive, you could consider the
option of the ESPCP that allows wire-lining out a failed pump
from the well while leaving the seal section, gear box, motor,
and cable still installed for additional usage. This modification
is in use in THUMS in Long Beach, CA.
Hydraulic Pumping. There are two kinds of hydraulic
pumps currently on the market; (1) positive displacement
pumps and (2) jet pumps. The positive displacement pump
consists of a reciprocating hydraulic engine directly coupled
to a pump piston or pump plunger (Figure 11). Power fluid
(oil or water) is directed down the tubing string to operate the
engine. The pump piston or plunger draws fluid from the well
bore through a standing valve. Exhausted power fluid and
production can be returned up a separate tubing string or up
the casing.
The jet pump is also shown in Figure 11. High pressure
power fluid is directed down the tubing to the nozzle where
the pressure energy is converted to velocity head. The high
velocity-low pressure power fluid entrains the production
fluid in the throat of the pump. A diffuser then reduces the
velocity and increases the pressure to allow the commingled
fluids to flow to the surface.
Combining the power fluid and production is called an
Open Power Fluid system. If production and power fluid are
returned up separate tubing, then this is a Parallel installation
with gas vented through the casing annulus to the surface. A
Casing installation requires the pump to handle the gas. Both
types are used with positive displacement pumps and with jet
pumps. In fact, most bottom hole assemblies can
accommodate interchangeability of jet pumps and positive
displacement pumps.
A Closed Power Fluid arrangement is where power fluid is
returned to the surface separately from the production.
Because the jet pump must commingle the power fluid and
production, it cannot operate as a Closed Power Fluid pump.
The most outstanding feature of hydraulic pumps is the
free pump (Figure 12). The drawing on the left of Figure 12
shows a standing valve (inserted by wireline) at the bottom of
the tubing and the tubing filled with fluid. In the second
drawing, a pump has been inserted in the tubing and is being
circulated to the bottom. In the third drawing the pump is on
bottom and pumping. When the pump is in need of repair, it is
circulated to the surface as shown in the drawing on the right.
The positive displacement pump, the jet pump and the closed
Disadvantages.
Power Fluid Cleaning - Removing solids from the
power fluid is very important for positive
displacement pumps. Surface plunger pumps are
also affected by solids in the power fluid. Jet pumps,
on the other hand, are very tolerant of poor power
fluid quality.
Pump Life - Positive displacement pumps, on
average, have shorter life between repairs than Jet,
sucker rod and electric submersible pumps. Mostly,
this is a function of the quality of power fluid, but
also, on average, they are pumping from greater
depths which is also a factor. Jet pumps, on the other
hand, have very long pump life between repairs
without solids or if not being subjected to cavitation.
Bottom Hole Pressure - Positive displacement
pumps can pump to practically zero bottom hole
pressure in the absence of gas interference and other
problems (lowest bottom hole pressure is a gas
gradient to the pump depth plus casing pressure) Jet
pumps cannot pump to low intake pressures. Jet
pumps require approximately 1000 PSI bottom hole
pressure when set at 10,000 feet and approximately
500 PSI when set at 5000 feet.
Skilled Personnel - Positive displacement pumps
generally require more highly skilled operating
personnel, or perhaps, just more attention, than jet
pumps and other types of artificial lift. There are
two reasons for this. First, pump speed needs to be
monitored daily and not allowed to become
excessive. Secondly, power fluid cleaning systems
need frequent checking to keep them operating at
their optimum effectiveness.
To answer the question, when do you use jet pumps and
when do you use positive displacement pumps?, our answer
is: Use jet pumps if the flowing (pumping) bottom hole
pressure is adequate (see disadvantage No. 3 above).
Gas Lift. Gas lift dominates the USA Gulf Coast and is
used extensively around the world. Most of these wells are on
SPE 52157
constant flow gas lift. Thus, the questions: Why choose gas
lift?, Where do you use constant flow? and When do you
select intermittent lift?
Constant Flow Gas Lift. A schematic of a gas lift system
is shown in Figure 13. Constant flow gas lift is recommended
for high volume and high static bottom hole pressure wells
where major pumping problems will occur. It is an excellent
application for offshore classic-type formations with water
drive, or waterflood reservoirs with good productivity indices
(PIs) and high gas-oil ratios (GORs). When high pressure
gas is available without compression or where gas is low in
cost, gas lift is especially attractive. Constant flow gas lift
supplements the produced gas with additional gas injection to
lower the intake pressure to the tubing, including lowering
formation pressure.
A reliable, adequate supply of good quality high-pressure
lift gas is mandatory. This supply is necessary throughout the
producing life if gas lift is to be effectively maintained. In
many fields the produced gas declines as water cut increases,
requiring some outside source of gas. The gas lift pressure is
typically fixed during the initial phase of the facility design
and as the water cut increases the depth of lift is decreased not
allowing the gas lift system to obtain the desired flowing
bottom hole pressure. Also the wells will produce erratically
or not at all when the lift supply stops or pressure fluctuates
radically. Poor quality gas will impair or even stop
production. Thus, the basic requirement for gas must be met
or other artificial lift means should be installed.
Constant flow gas lift imposes a relatively high back
pressure on the reservoir compared to pumping methods and
is at best only moderately efficient. The high back pressure
may significantly reduce production as compared with some
pumping methods and poor efficiency significantly increases
both capital cost and operating energy costs.
Advantages.
Gas lift is the best artificial lift method for handling
sand or solid materials. Many wells make some sand
even if sand control is installed. The produced sand
causes almost no mechanical problem to the gas lift
valve; whereas, only a little sand plays havoc with
most pumping methods.
Deviated or crooked holes can be gas lifted with
only minor lift problems. This is especially
important for offshore platform wells which are
directionally drilled.
Gas lift permits the use of wireline equipment and
such equipment is easily and economically serviced.
This feature allows for routine repairs through the
tubing.
The normal design leaves the tubing full opening.
This permits use of BHP surveys, sand sounding and
bailing, production logging, cutting, paraffin, etc.
SPE 52157
Disadvantages.
Relatively high back pressure may seriously restrict
production in continuous gas lift. This problem
becomes more significant with increasing depths
and declining static BHPs. Thus a 10,000 foot well
with a static BHP of 1000 psi and a PI of 1.0 would
be difficult to lift with the standard constant flow
gas lift system. However, there are some special
schemes that could be tried for such wells.
Gas lift is relatively inefficient, often resulting in
large capital investments and high energy operating
costs. The cost of compressors is relatively high and
are often long delivery items. Costs in 1981 were
found to be $500 to $600 per horsepower for typical
land locations and $1000 to $1400 per horsepower
for offshore packages. The compressor presents
space and weight design problems when used on
offshore platforms. Also, the cost of the distribution
systems onshore may be significant. Increased gas
usage also may increase the size of flow line and
separators needed.
Adequate gas supply is needed throughout life of
project. If the field runs out of gas or if gas becomes
SPE 52157
SPE 52157
10
Gas Revenue
1.25 $/Mscf
Inflation Rate
3 %/yr.
Discount Rate for Present Value
8 %/yr.
Oil Revenue Increase
1 %/yr.
To calculate the expected lifetime of the well, reasonable
reservoir production estimates must be supplied. For this
example, we assume that all lift methods (ESP, Gas Lift,
Beam Pump & Hydraulics) will produce initially at the same
rate, 1000 bbl/day with 50% water cut and 400 GOR. The
reservoir is assumed to decline immediately at 20 %/year
reduction in oil rate. Water cut is assumed to increase
maintaining the rate constant (water injection). At 90% water
cut, the simulation is stopped. The GOR is assumed to remain
constant for this example.
The actual possible initial production rate would differ for
each method, but for comparison purposes and to illustrate the
concepts, a rate of 1000 bbl/day for each method is assumed.
Different rates would possibly require different production
facilities and different initial costs. Thus each method should
be optimized and the associated required costs included in the
economic analysis.
Method specific costs must also be included as shown in
Tables 5-9.
Run Life Tables. The average pump run life for the pumping
systems, and the injected gas volume for gas lift, is required to
estimate the life-time costs for the different methods. The
values assumed for this example are listed in Table 10. The
last value in each table is used for subsequent years.
The different methods are compared by calculating the net
present value (NPV) income as a function of time until the
production rate decreases to the abandonment rate. This gives
a direct comparison of the different methods in terms of the
net revenue the well would be expected to produce.
Figure 14 shows results for the assumptions of this
example. Rod pumping would be the best method, showing to
be slightly more profitable than ESP, over the ~7 year life of
the well. The analysis is stopped at ~7 years when 90% water
cut is reached. These analyses also can be run for depleting
rates.
The NPV and total lifetime costs for each method are
summarized in Table 11. The operating costs are significant,
ranging from 14-26% of the NPV for this low rate example.
Reduction in operating costs could therefore be a significant
factor in selecting the optimum lift method.
To re-emphasize, the results will depend upon the
particular cost related data for each method. For this case,
however, it is likely that rod pump or ESP would be the most
economical method depending on the detailed cost data, and
gas lift and hydraulic pump would not be recommended.
High Rate Example. A well with productivity index PI =
24 bbl/d/psi is considered. Rod pumping cannot deliver the
rates required for this design and is eliminated from
consideration. Artificial lift designs with jet pump, ESP and
gas lift yield only are considered.
Production GOR and water cut is constant at 100 scf/bbl
and 1% respectively. Abandonment rate is 500 bbl/d, oil +
SPE 52157
SPE 52157
11
12
Appendix
The economic equations used for the selection of lift methods
by economic analysis are summarized in this Appendix. The
equations are presented as pseudo code for readability. Values
not explicitly calculated are assumed to be user input values.
Initial Oil Rate (BBL/YR)
=
365.25 x Initial
Production Rate x
Initial Water Cut
Abandonment Oil Rate
=
365.25 x Total
Abandonment Rate
x Abandonment
Water Cut
Rdecl
=
Oil Production
Decline Rate/100
Years to Abandonment
=
- (Ln(Initial Oil
Rate) Ln(Aband.
Oil Rate))/Ln(1
Rdecl)
Initialize at Year 0
BOPD(0)
Water Cut(0)
GOR(0)
Cumulative NPV (0)
Cumulative Oil (0)
=
=
=
=
=
SPE 52157
WC (I)
WC (0) + I x
(Abandonment WC Initial WC)/ Years to
Abandonment
GOR (I)
= GOR (0) + I x
(Abandonment GOR Initial GOR)/ Years to
Abandonment
Calculate Water and Gas Rates for Year I
Qwat (I) = Qoil (I) x WC (I) / (1 WC (I))
Qgas (I) = .001 x Qoil (I) x GOR (I)
Calculate Required Cost and Revenue Factors
Rinflation
= (1 + Inflation Rate / 100) ^
(I - 0.5)
Rdiscount
= (1 + Discount Rate / 100)
^ (I - 0.5)
Roil
= (1 + Oil Price Increase
Rate/ 100) ^ (I - 0.5)
Requip
= (1 + Equipment Cost
Increase Rate / 100) ^ (I 0.5)
Relec
= Electricity cost / bbl
liquid produced = 24 x
kW/blpd x $/kW
Calculate Fluid Costs
Fluid Cost (I)
= Rinflation x Fluid
Disposal Cost/BBL x
(Qoil (I) + Qwat (I) )
Calculated Fixed Operating Cost
Fixed Cost (I)
= Rinflation x 12 x
(Common Fixed Cost +
Method Specific Fixed
Cost)
Calculate Workover Cost
Workover Cost (I)
= Rinflation x
Cost/Workover Day x
Days/Workover x
Workovers/Year
Calculate Equipment Cost. Equipment costs are specified
for each lift method and vary from method to method. For
each method, the type of equipment (pump, sucker rods,
tubing, ESP cable, etc), replacement cost for each type and the
anticipated frequency of replacement (either as a run life table
or a fixed replacement interval) are specified.
Total equipment cost is calculated by summing over all
identified method specific equipment, including the equipment
cost ONLY during those years where replacement is
scheduled from the run life table or specified fixed
replacement interval.
Equipment Cost (I)
= Equipment Cost (I-1)
FOR J
= 1 to Number of
Equipment Types
IF year I is a replacement year for Equipment (J) THEN
SPE 52157
ENDIF
END FOR
Calculate Electricity Cost
Electricity Cost (I)
=
Rinflation x Relec x
(Qoil (I) + Qwat (I))
Calculate Total Costs for Year 1
Yearly Cost (I)
= Fluid Cost (I) + Fixed
Cost (I) + Workover
Cost (I) + Equipment Cost
(I) + Electricity Cost (I)
Calculate Total Income for Year I
Yearly Income (I)
= Roil x (1 Royalty/100)
x (Qoil (I) x $/BBl Oil
+ Qgas (I) x $/Mscf)
Calculate Net Present Value from Year I
Net PV (I)
= (Yearly Income (I) Yearly Cost (I)) /
Rdiscount
Calculate Cumulative Net PV from Year 0 to Year I
Cumulative NPV (I)
= Cumulative NPV (I-1) +
Net PV (I)
END FOR
13
14
SPE 52157
Rod Pumping
Relatively simple
system design
Units easily
changed to other
wells with
minimum cost
Hydraulic
Piston
Pumping
Electric
Submersible
Pumping
Not so depth
limited-can lift
large volumes
from great depths
Can lift
extremely high
volumes,
20,000 B/D
(19078 m 3/d),
in shallow wells
with large
casing.
Efficient, simple
and easy for field
people to operate.
Applicable to slim
holes and multiple
completions.
Crooked holes
present minimal
problems.
Unobtrusive in
urban locations.
System usually is
naturally vented
for gas separation
and fluid level
soundings.
Flexible-can
match
displacement rate
to well capability
as well declines.
Analyzable.
Can lift hightemperature and
viscous oils.
Downhole pumps
can be circulated
out in free
systems.
Corrosion and
scale treatments
easy to perform.
Applicable to
multiple
completions.
Applicable to
pump off control if
electrified.
Applicable
offshore.
Availability of
different sizes.
Hollow sucker
rods are available
for slim hole
completions and
ease of inhibitor
treatment.
Have pumps with
double valving
that pump on both
upstroke and
downstroke.
Currently lifting
120,000 B/D
(19068 m 3/d)
from water
supply wells in
Middle East
with 600-hp
(448-kW) units;
720-hp (537kW) available,
1,000-hp (746kW) under
development.
Unobtrusive in
urban locations.
Simple to
operate.
Easy to install
downhole
pressure
sensor for
telemetering
pressure to
surface via
cable.
Crooked hole
present no
problem.
Applicable
offshore.
Corrosion and
scale treatment
easy to
perform.
Availability in
different size.
Lifting cost for
high volumes
generally very
low.
Gas Lift
Can handle
large volume of
solids with
minor
problems.
Handles large
volume in highPl wells
(continuous
lift). 50,000
B/D (7949.37
m 3/d).
Fairly flexibleconvertible
from
continuous to
intermittent to
chamber or
plunger lift as
well declines.
Unobtrusive in
urban
locations.
Power source
can be
remotely
located.
Easy to obtain
downhole
pressures and
gradients.
Lifting gassy
wells is no
problem.
Sometimes
serviceable
with wireline
unit.
Crooked holes
present no
problem.
Corrosion is
not usually as
adverse.
Applicable
offshore.
Hydraulic
Jet Pump
Plunger lift
Retrievable without
pulling tubing.
Retrievable without
pulling tubing.
Very inexpensive
installation.
No problems in
deviated or crooked
holes.
Unobtrusive in urban
locations.
Automatically
keeps tubing clean
of paraffin, scale.
Applicable for high
gas oil ratio wells.
Applicable offshore.
Can use water as a
power source.
Power fluid does not
have to be so clean
as for hydraulic piston
pumping.
Corrosion scale
emulsion treatment
easy to perform.
Power source can be
remotely located and
can handle high
volumes to
30,000 B/D (4769.62
m 3/d).
Can be used in
conjunction with
intermittent gas lift.
Can be used to
unload liquid from
gas wells.
Progressive
Cavity
Pumps
Some types
are retrievable
with rods
Moderate Cost
Low Profile
Can use
downhole
electric motors
that handle
sand and
viscous fluid
well
High electrical
efficiency
SPE 52157
15
Hydraulic
Piston
Pumping
Power oil
systems are a
fire hazard.
Large oil
inventory
required in
power oil
system which
detracts from
profitability.
High solids
production is
troublesome.
Operating costs
are sometimes
higher.
Usually
susceptible to
gas
interferenceusually not
vented.
Vented
installations are
more expensive
because of
extra tubing
required.
Treating for
scale below
packer is
difficult.
Not easy for
field personnel
to troubleshoot.
Difficult to
obtain valid well
tests in low
volume wells.
Requires two
strings of tubing
for some
installations.
Problems in
treating power
water where
used.
Safety problem
for high surface
pressure power
oil.
Lost of power
oil in surface
equipment
failure.
Electric
Submersible
Pumping
Gas Lift
Not applicable to
multiple compilations.
Difficult to lift
emulsions and
viscous crudes.
Not efficient for small
fields or one-well
leases if compression
equipment is required.
Gas freezing and
hydrate problems.
Problems with dirty
surface lines.
Some difficulty in
analyzing properly
without engineering
supervision.
Cannot effectively
produce deep wells to
abandonment.
Requires makeup gas
in rotative systems.
Casing must
withstand lift
pressure.
Safety problem with
high pressure gas.
Hydraulic
Jet Pump
Relatively
inefficient lift
method.
Requires at least
20%
submergence to
approach best lift
efficiency.
Design of system
is more complex.
Pump may
cavitate under
certain
conditions.
Very sensitive to
any change in
back pressure.
The producing of
free gas through
the pump causes
reduction in ability
to handle liquids.
Power oil
systems are fire
hazard.
High surface
power fluid
pressures are
required.
Plunger Lift
Progressive
Cavity
Pumps
Elastomers in
stator swell in
some well fluids
Rotating rods
wear tubing;
windup and
after-spin of
rods increase
with depth
Requires more
engineering
supervision to
adjust properly.
Danger exists
in plunger
reaching too
high a velocity
and causing
surface
damage.
Communication
between tubing
and casing
required for
good operation
unless used in
conjunction with
gas lift.
POC is difficult
Lose efficiency
with depth
16
SPE 52157
ESP
1000
105000
48
900
.031
1000
225
(Inventory)
Item
Tubing
Valve
Mandrel
Replace
2
6
SPE 52157
17
Year
1
2
3
4
5
18
SPE 52157
Year
1
2
3
4
Method
ESP
Gas Lift
Jet Pump
Table 18: Field conditions for THUMS field where MTBFs are illustrated in Figure 18
Zone
On/Offshore
Active Producers
General Description
Ranger
Terminal
Offshore
Offshore
439
128
Unconsolidated
Poorly
Sandstone
Consolidated
Sandstone
200 - 5,500
120 - 3,500
UP Ford
Offshore
44
Moderately
Consolidated
Sandstone
40 - 1,500
100 - 850
100 - 850
100 - 600
2,100-3,200
2,800 - 4,200 4,100 - 7,100
15
20
28
11
35
80
1,000
1,100
1,400
130
160
210
94
82.5
80
80
15
5
CaCO, BaSO4 CaCO, BaSO4
CaCO
light - heavy
light - heavy
light - heavy
0-5%
0-5%
0-1%
0-4000
0-4000
0-2000
0-4000
0-4000
0-2000
Y
Y
Y
8-5/8", 32#
8-5/8", 32#
9-5/8", 40#
6-5/8", 28#
6-5/8", 28#
7", 26#
Gravel Pack
Gravel Pack Slotted Liner
2-7/8", 6.4#
2-7/8", 6.4#
2-7/8", 6.4#
SPE 52157
19
Table 19: Summary of lives and costs of various components of an ESP system (Ref. 6)
900 BPD TARGET CASE
ite m
c o st
PV
/ ye a rly c o st
1
2
Wo rko ve r fre q ue nc y
investment:
p ump / p rotec to r
se p a ra tor
c a b le
mo to r
d o w nho le se nso r
tub ing
ste p -up tra nsfo rme r
VSD/ sw itc h b o a rd
c a b le p ro te c tors
opera ting costs:
e le c tric ity
w o rko ve r
inve nto ry
o ve rhe a d
TOTAL ESC . EXPENSE
ca shflow
24.3
3.9
50.3
20.4
5.6
83.0
10.2
31.2
14.0
15.0
(977) 257.9
equipment:
389 sta g e p ump
120 HP mo to r
No 2 c a b le
2.8
1.1
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
68.5
11.1
50.3
28.7
15.8
83.0
10.2
31.2
14.0
26.5
4.3
14.6
2.4
12.1
2.0
12.1
20.4
42.3
2.7
22.7
400.8
-401
10
11
12
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
12.1
12.1
12.1
12.1
12.1
12.1
12.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
22.1
7.5
2.7
3.0
69.2
-69
22.4
7.5
2.7
3.0
72.3
-72
22.7
7.5
2.7
3.0
75.6
-76
22.9
7.5
2.7
3.0
79.1
-79
23.2
7.5
2.7
3.0
82.7
-83
11.1
5.6
6.1
5.6
5.1
5.6
5.1
5.1
50.3
5.1
20.6
16.4
2.7
5.2
96.0
-96
20.9
9.0
2.7
3.7
70.2
-70
21.1
7.5
2.7
3.4
66.9
-67
21.4
7.5
2.7
2.9
60.5
-61
21.6
7.5
2.7
2.9
63.3
-63
21.9
7.5
2.7
6.0
133.7
-134
a ll c ost x $1000
Table 20: Summary of some lives of ESP equipment derived for the study in Reference 6.
Estimated cumulative service life for ESP components1.
Component/case
Pump/intake
Separator2
Motor
Cable
d.h. sensor
Transformer
VSD3
Tubing
1
150 BFPB
target
300 BFPD
target
>450 BFPD
target
150 BFPD
downside
target curve
target curve
2x target
6 years
target curve
15 years
5 year
15 years
target curve
target curve
2x target
6 years
target curve
15 years
5 year
15 years
target curve
target curve
2x target
6 years
target curve
15 years
5 year
15 years
<250 curve
<250 curve
2x <250
6 years
<250 curve
15 years
5 year
15 years
Cumulative service life in this table is related to the estimated run life depicted in Figure 19.
Rotary separators will be used for the first 5 years only
VSDs will only be used for the first 5 years.
2
3
300 BFPD
downside
interpolated
interpolated
2x interp.
6 years
interpolated
15 years
5 year
15 years
>450 BFPD
downside
>500 curve
>500 curve
2x >500
6 years
>500 curve
15 years
5 year
15 years
20
SPE 52157
Operator
Citronell Unit
Operator,
Depth
Production
(ft)
(bpd)
10-11000
300-400
N. Of Mobile, Al.
Texaco
Barre Field,
49
75
100-450
10,500
15-50
Triplex, oil
Vortex to clean oil
165
10,000
75
Triplex, 3000-3500
psi
90
at 3900 psi
Woodland Unit
MWJ
Baum/Sanders
Comments
(days)
15,000
S. Al.
Unocal
Wyoming
in New Mexico
no trouble
J. Schlagel
Marathon
Cody Unit, WY
7,500
475
Triplex,uses
water and oil
180 (min)
Andy Franklin
Vortex cleanup
experience)
4 spd trans
UNOCAL
Huntington Beach
4,000
295
Joe Gonzales
BHA's 3 years
Cook Inlet
UNICAL
Dean Geisert
likes hydraulic
better
than ESP's
7,500
105 avg
180 plus
gears on triplex's
Average Pump Run Life, days
114.5
SPE 52157
21
Table 22: Summary of run lives and costs assumed for one rate for study of Reference 6.
1000 B PD
PV
it e m
cost
/ y e a r ly c o s t
1
2
p u m p r e p a ir f r e q .
2 .0 0
in v e s t m e n t :
d o w n h o le p u m p
a s s o c ia t e d e q u ip m e n t
p o w e r f lu id p u m p *
p o w e r f lu id s y s t e m
a u t o m a t io n e q u ip m e n t
t u b in g
1 0 .0
3 0 .0
5 0 .0
1 1 0 .0
1 0 .0
1 5 5 .4
o p e r a t in g c o s t s :
e le c t r ic it y
w o rk o ve r
w e ll a t t e n d e n c e
s u r f a c e e q p m . m a in t .
d o w n h o le p u m p r e p a ir *
o ve rh e a d
TO TA L E S C . E X PE N S E
c a s h f lo w
H y d r a u lic P u m p S y s t e m s
TA R G E T C A S E
2 .0 0
2 .0 0
2 .0 0
2 .0 0
2 .0 0
1 0 .0
3 0 .0
5 0 .0
1 1 0 .0
1 0 .0
1 5 5 .4
3 8 .4
6 0 .0
2 .5
1 1 .2
8 .0
2 9 .1
5 1 4 .6
-5 1 5
3 0 .0
4 .0
(1,222) 3 9 9 .4
2 .0 0
10
11
12
2 .0 0
2 .0 0
2 .0 0
2 .0 0
2 .0 0
4 1 .7
4 2 .2
4 2 .7
4 3 .2
4 3 .7
2 .5
1 1 .2
8 .0
3 .8
8 8 .5
-8 8
2 .5
1 1 .2
8 .0
3 .8
9 2 .7
-9 3
2 .5
1 1 .2
8 .0
3 .9
9 7 .2
-9 7
2 .5
1 1 .2
8 .0
3 .9
1 0 1 .9
-1 0 2
2 .5
1 1 .2
8 .0
3 .9
1 0 6 .8
-1 0 7
1 0 .0
1 0 .0
5 0 .0
3 8 .8
3 9 .3
3 9 .8
4 0 .2
4 0 .7
2 .5
1 1 .2
8 .0
3 .6
6 6 .7
-6 7
2 .5
1 1 .2
8 .0
3 .7
6 9 .9
-7 0
2 .5
1 1 .2
8 .0
3 .7
7 3 .3
-7 3
2 .5
1 1 .2
8 .0
3 .7
7 6 .8
-7 7
2 .5
1 1 .2
8 .0
3 .7
8 0 .5
-8 1
4 1 .2
3 0 .0
2 .5
1 1 .2
8 .0
9 .8
2 1 8 .5
-2 1 9
a ll c o s t x $ 1 0 0 0
2000
Pressure, psig
1500
1000
500
1
0
100
Not Used
Outflow (A)
Not Used
Not Used
Not Used
Not Used
Not Used
200
300
400
500
600
22
SPE 52157
2000
Pressure, psig
1500
1000
500
5
0
100
200
Not Used
Outflow (A)
Case 2 (B)
Case 3 (C)
Case 4 (D)
Case 5 (E)
Not Used
3
300
2
400
1
500
Inflow
(1) 2000.0
(2) 1800.0
(3) 1600.0
(4) 1400.0
(5) 1200.0
600
SPE 52157
A r t if ic ia l L if t :
R a t e
v s . D e p t h
10
100
v s . M
e t h o d
BPD
1
23
1000
10000
100000
0
2000
Plunger
4000
DEPTH, FT
6000
Gaslift
8000
10000
Beam
12000
ESP
14000
16000
18000
10
100
0
2000
Hyd. Jet
4000
DEPTH, FT
6000
PCP
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
Hyd.
Recip.
18000
Figure 5: Depth/Rate Selection Chart after Blais
1000
10000
100000
24
SPE 52157
SPE 52157
25
PCP
Flex Shaft
Assembly
Deviated wells
Viscous production
Cable
Seal Section
Gear
Reducer
Electric Motor
26
SPE 52157
PCP
Cable
Flex Shaft
Assembly
PC pump
y New components include:
Intake with flex shaft
Gear reducer
Cable
Seal Section
Gear
Reducer
Electric Motor
SPE 52157
27
28
Present Value
MM $
SPE 52157
ESP
Gas Lift
Hydraulic Pump
Rod Pump
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
0
Years
D:\LANG\VB4\ECON\LORATE1.PEP
Present Value
MM $
225
200
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
Years
Figure 15: Summary of High Rate NPV Analysis
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
SPE 52157
29
1.2 0
1.14
30 0
25 0
0.74
20 0
0.81
$9 7 2 .4 K
P u lls
1.0 0
F PW PY
0.8 0
$8 6 3 .4 K
0.60
15 0
$6 4 1 .6
0.45
10 0
0.6 0
$567.5K
$8 6 3 .7 K
0.51
$4 6 1 .1 K
0.41
0.39
0.4 0
0.29
50
0.2 0
0.0 0
1989
1 990
19 91
199 2
1993
1 994
1 995
19 96
199 7
Figure 16: History of typical beam pump opeation: failures per year with approximate associated costs.
P olis h Rods
5%
Other
3%
Rod B odies
15%
P um ps
38%
P in & Couplings
19%
Tubing
20%
Figure 17: Typical distribution of failures among the beam pump system components
30
SPE 52157
1,4 00
1,3 00
1,2 00
A c tiv e E S P s
1,1 00
M TB F , D ay s
1,0 00
9 00
8 00
7 00
6 00
5 00
4 00
3 00
2 00
1 00
0
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991 1992
1993 1994
1995
1996
1997
Figure 18: History of increasingly better run lives (MTBF) in the THUMS field.
Sw an Hills (Im
Target
800
Runlife (days)
700
Sw an Hills
600
Congo
500
400
300
200
Milne Point
100
0
0
10
Years of deployment
Figure 19: Failure data from a number of field locations and also target values for the
study in Reference 6.
400
350
Days
300
250
industry data
200
target
150
downside
100
50
BFPD
NOTE : several values reported as 180 days plus
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100