Screening AL

Artificial Lift Screening and Selection
Master Class
Andres Martingano
Artificial Lift 2013 – Praxis Interactive Technology Workshop
Agenda
• Introduction: The Need

• AL Selection Process Overview
• Some Common (and Less Common) Options
• Step 1: Screen
• Step 2: Evaluate
• Step 3: Select
• Summary
9 Sep 2013 Artificial Lift Screening and Selection Page 2

Agenda

• Step 1: Screen
• Step 3: Select
• Summary

The Need: One approach
• Liquid production profile with initial natural flow period
100
70
“Delay AL ”
Liquid Rate
Increased need for energy to lift fluid

(depletion, WC increase) approach
40
10
Good Natural Complement Provide
Flow Reservoir External
Period Energy Energy
-20
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time

The Need: A different approach
• Liquid production profile with AL inception on day 1
100
“Accelerate
70
production”
Liquid Rate
approach
40
Complement Late Introduction of
Reservoir Artificial Lift
Energy from Day 1
10
-20
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time

The Need: Business!
• In technical terms, we are always doing the same thing:

– adding energy to the fluids in the wellbore to produce them to
the surface
• In terms of managing the reservoir and the production, the
approaches generally produce different results
– Field life
– Reserves
– Economics
AL screening and selection is more than a technical exercise,

IT’S BUSINESS!

Agenda

• Step 1: Screen
• Step 3: Select
• Summary

AL Selection as a Business Process
• What are the desirable characteristics in this process?

AL Selection
Unbiased Documented Repeatable Reliable
Incremental Improvements
Quality Assurance

AL Selection During the Life of the Asset
Life Stages of an Asset
Exploration and Development Operation
Appraisal
• Data gathering • FDP definition • Monitor

• Well • Completion performance
performance design • Evaluate failures
testing • Artificial lift • Re-design and re-
selection select equipment
• Well operation if needed
philosophy
• Implementation
Artificial Lift Screening and Selection Progress
Little data Data for FDP Operations Data

•AL selection unimportant •Little constraints on selection and design •Regular data acquisition
•Production
•Artificial lift KPIs

AL Selection Impact on Asset Value
VALUE

AL Selection Process
• Three-step process and tools used

• The process is essentially the same at the stage of FDP or field
operation, except that during operations:
• Designs can be optimized, but
• There can be less flexibility to adopt a different AL method
1. Screen Attribute tables
2. Evaluate LOF Design
Economics
3. Select and
Scorecards
AL Selection Process: Influence Diagram
Permeability Net Pay
Distribution Distribution Onshore Offshore Platform
Pressure and
Temperature
Reservoir Data
Well Location Subsea
Drive
Mechanism
Well Trajectory
Productivity Damage
through Completion
or Production Surface Facilities
Well Upper
Well Reservoir-Face
Completion (casing
Completion
and tubing)
PVT properties
Fluid Data
AL Method
Viscosity
Corrosive Potential for organic

Economics
Conditions / inorganic
depostions

AL Selection Process Overview
• The main points are

– In the planning phase
• AL selection and performance prediction has to provide feedback
into the FDP
• Improve concept selection and planning
• Increase asset value
– In the operating phase
• Important decisions like surface facilities and well completions are
largely fixed
• Main scope could be reduced to optimization

Agenda

• Step 1: Screen
• Step 3: Select
• Summary

Some AL Options
Widely Used ... Less Used ... Even Less Used

• GL • HPP • HSP
• ESP • JP • ESPCP
• SRP • HDESP
• PCP • Wellhead Ejectors
• PL

GL: Typical Pros and Cons
Advantages Limitations
• High degree of flexibility • May be uneconomical
for design rates for few wells
• Very few moving parts
• Fluid viscosity
• Allows full-bore tubing
access • Achievable BHP
• Minimal space • Higher FTHP for same
requirements for surface liquid rate
equipment
• Multi-well production • Limited gas injection
from single gas source rate (depending on
• Multiple or slimhole orifice)
completion • Well integrity concerns
Image courtesy of Weatherford

GL: Some Options to Enhance The System
• Well integrity
– Dual valve side-pocket mandrels
– Metal to metal seal valves
– Use of corrosion-resistant materials (inconel)
– High-pressure injection valves
• Higher flexibility
– Surface-operated electric GLV
– Breaking-out gas device to improve stability
• Better rate control
– Venturi GLV
• Application to few wells or marginal fields
– Option to buy HP gas from external source

ESP: Typical Pros and Cons
• High rates and depth • Available electric power
• Good efficiencies at • Casing size limits pump size
Q>1000bpd • Limited capacity to adapt to
• Minor surface reservoir performance
changes
equipment needs
• Difficult to repair in the field
• Good in deviated wells
• Free gas and solids handling
• Can be used for well • Emulsions might be formed
testing with high viscosity fluids
and water
• Workover required to
change

ESP: Some Options to Enhance The System
• Higher flexibility
– Use of VSDs
– Use of gas separators
• Lower costs
– Alternative ESP deployment (cable, CT, WRESP)
– ESP dual systems
– Improved monitoring
• Use in Reduced wellbore sizes
– Application of permanent magnet materials to reduce motor
size, enabling through-tubing installation

JP: Typical Pros and Cons
• Adaptable to a wide range of • Some require
well depths and deviations specific bottom-hole
• Good handling of entrained assemblies
gas and solids • High-pressure
• No moving parts surface line
• Can be circulated into and requirements
out of operating position for • Lower horsepower
repairs efficiency
• Typical repairs (change
nozzle and throat or o-ring
seals) can be done on site

JP: Some Options to Enhance the System
• Avoid water-handling challenges

– Use dead crude as a power fluid
• Economics
– JP inefficiency (higher CAPEX for power fluid requirements)
might be offset by lower OPEX through LOF

HPP: Typical Pros and Cons
• Adaptable to a wide range • Solids handling
of well depths and • Requires specific
deviations bottom-hole
• Can be circulated into and assemblies
out of operating position • Medium rates
for repairs • Requires service
• Positive displacement facilities
pump allows greater • Free gas
drawdown
• Requires high-pressure
• Multi-well production from surface lines
single surface package

SRP: Typical Pros and Cons
• High system efficiency • Potential for tubing
• Economical to repair and and rod wear
service • Limited gas-
• Positive displacement pump handling capability
allows high drawdown
• Limited to ability of
• Upgraded materials can reduce rods to handle
corrosion concerns
loads
• Can adapt to production
changes through stroke length • Environmental
and speed changes concerns
• High salvage value for surface • Visual impact
and downhole equipment

SRP: Some Options to Enhance the System
• Enhance fluid handling capability

– Gas separators
• Reduce rod string wear
– Use centralizers
– Use COROD
• Minimize surface impact
– Different choice of surface units (e.g. LRP)

PCP: Typical Pros and Cons
• Low capital cost • Limited depth
• Low surface profile capability
• High system efficiency • Temperature
• Simple installation, quiet • Sensitive to produced
operation fluids
• Pumps liquids with solids • Low volumetric
• Low power consumption efficiencies in high-
GOR wells
• Portable surface equipment
• Potential for tubing
• Low maintenance costs and rod coupling wear
• Use in directional /
horizontal wells
PCP: Some Options to Enhance the System
• Temperature and Fluids Sensitivity

– Alternative elastomers
– Metal stator PCPs
• Challenging well conditions with sand or gas
– Use charge pumps

PL: Typical Pros and Cons
• Uses the well’s energy • Low potential rates
• Dewatering gas wells • Poor solids handling
• Rig not required for • Greater effort to
installation optimize
• Easy maintenance
• Keeps well cleaned of
paraffin deposits
• Handles gassy wells
• Good in deviated wells
• Can produce to depletion

Other Systems
• Hydraulic Submersible Pump (HSP)

• Electrical Submersible PCP (ESPCP)
• Hydraulic Diaphragm ESP (HDESP)
• Wellhead Ejectors (Surface Jet Pumps)
• ... and others...

AL Options: The Message
• Do not narrow down options too much at an early stage

– There are more things to consider than the ‘typical’ scenarios
for AL system application
– New technologies and developments can enhance the
applicability and performance of AL systems for different
scenarios
– There are less commonly used AL systems which could work for
your asset
– Use industry experience to assess track record (papers, case
studies, colleagues)

Agenda

• Step 1: Screen
• Step 3: Select
• Summary

AL Selection: Screen Phase
• Qualitative comparison – eliminate unsuitable technologies

• Charts and attribute tables might be used
Economics
3. Select and
Scorecards
• Attribute tables are preferred, and should be customized for

the development in question

Screening Common Options: ‘Quick-look’
Charts For High Rates
• Screening of High Rate Applications

AL Applicability Based on Rate and Depth
35,000
GL
30,000 ESP
JP
25,000
Liquid Rate (bpd)
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000
Lift Depth (ft TVD)

Charts For Low Rates
• Screening of Low Rate Applications

AL Applicability Based on Rate and Depth
4,500
HPP
4,000
SRP
3,500 PCP
Liquid Rate (bpd)
3,000
PL
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000
Lift Depth (ft TVD)

Attribute Table
• Typical vendor-provided screening table

Progressive Cavity Hydraulic Piston Electric
Sucker Rod Pump Pump Gas Lift Plunger Lift Pump Jet Pump Submersible Pump
(SRP) (PCP) (GL) (PL) (HPP) (JP) (ESP)
100 - 2,000 - 5,000 - 8,000 - 7,500 - 5,000 - 1,000 -
Operating depth (ft TVD)
16,000 6,000 15,000 19,000 17,000 15,000 15,000
5- 5- 200 - 1- 50 - 300 - 200 -
Typical operating rate (bpd)
5,000 4,500 30,000 5 4,000 15,000 30,000
100 - 75 - 100 - 120 - 100 - 100 - 100 -
Operating temperature (°F)
550 250 400 500 500 500 400
Good to Good to
Corrosion handling Fair Excellent Good Excellent Good
Excellent Excellent
Fair to Poor to
Gas handling Good Excellent Excellent Fair Good
Good Fair
Fair to Poor to Poor to
Solids handling Excellent Good Poor Good
Good Fair Fair
GLR = 300 scf/bbl
Fluid gravity (°API) >8 < 35 > 15 >8 >8 > 10
/1000ft depth
Workover or Workover or Wireline or Wellhead Catcher Hydraulic or Hydraulic or Workover or
Servicing
Pulling rig Pulling rig Workover rig or Wireline Wireline Wireline Pulling Rig
Gas or Gas or Multicylinder or Multicylinder or
Prime mover Compressor Reservoir energy Electric Motor
Electric Electric Electric Electric
Offshore application Limited Good Excellent N/A Good Excellent Excellent
45 - 45 - 10 - 45 - 10 - 35 -
Overall system efficiency (%) N/A
60 70 30 55 30 60

Use of Tables and Charts
• ‘Standard’ screening charts and tables

– Good for a ‘quick-look’ screening
– Generally more useful to discard a few options than to pick a few
– May be limited in the options included
– May ignore extended applicability of particular systems using
materials or accessories not provided by them
– May not provide a full picture in terms of factors that can work against
the applicability of systems under specific conditions
– Ignore economics considerations
– Ignore people-related considerations
– Experts in specific systems can find ways to ‘push the envelope’
• A customized attributes table can overcome these limitations

Building a Better Attributes Table






Onshore
Location Offshore
Remote
Power Availability
Gas Availability
Surface Facilities
Capacity Constraints
Factors
Well Factors Possibility of Expansion
Uptime
Start-up from Shutdown
Production
Factors Through
Field Life System Efficiency
HSE Factors
Artificial Lift
Flow Assurance
Screening
Factors
Attributes
Vendor-Related
Factors
Fluid Properties
Staff-Related
Factors
Reservoir
Management
Factors
Budget-Related
Factors






• Possibly, not all

the attributes are
important for a
given case
• Refine...


• Attribute Scoring Keep it simple

• Promote transparency
– No more than ‘good option’, ‘average option’, and ‘poor option’
(or ‘1’, ‘2’, and ‘3’ scores or similar)
– Define the options
• ‘good’ = applicable, works, no problem
• ‘average’ = may be applicable, requires further analysis
• ‘poor’ = not recommended, known issues, not applicable

• Typical presentation (easily implemented in a spreadsheet)

ALS # 1 ALS # 2 ... ALS # n
Attribute # 1
Attribute # 2
Attribute # 3
...
Attribute # n
• Is documented
• Includes all important attributes
• Considers inputs from other disciplines

Agenda

• Step 1: Screen
• Step 3: Select
• Summary

AL Selection: Evaluate Phase
• Quantitative analysis – find conditions for AL systems operation

• Design systems to operate in the field
Economics
3. Select and
Scorecards
• Provide feedback to wells and facilities design
• Assess performance of the system under changing conditions
• Generate estimates for economics

Formation-Face Design AL for LOF Outputs

Operating Envelope Conditions
• Realistic inflow • Different scenarios • Budget requirements

potential • Early-life • CAPEX
• Well issues, related • Middle-life • OPEX
to mechanical • Late-life • Production profiles
integrity and flow
• Assess suitability for
assurance. E.g.
changing conditions
Erosion produced
by sand and fines at • Provide feedback
high rates, • Well design
formation collapse, • Facilities design
tubular collapse,
scale / asphaltene
deposition
• Reservoir issues,
e.g. gas or water
coning, or
problems
producing below
Pbp

• Formation-Face Operating Envelope – an example
or stable operation
BHP
Minimum rate VLP to be achieved
for
Pres initial
Pres abandon
Pbp Minimum allowable BHP
Pformation integrity
Qmin Qmax Qliq

• Design AL for LOF Conditions

•GOR vs. Cumulative
Expected •WC vs. Cumulative
Production •Reservoir Pressure vs. Cumulative
Profiles
•Early Life
•Middle Life
Define •Late Life
Scenarios
•Determine power required to lift target rate

•Assess feasible target rate
Design AL •Design system
for each •Test design against uncertainty in production conditions and improve it
Scenario
•Feedback for well and facilities design

•Well performance for production profile forecast
Generate •OPEX and CAPEX requirements, bearing in mind MTBF and production deferment
Outputs

• DON’Ts:
– Create a single design for worst conditions: that is good as a
feasibility check but not to understand LOF requirements
– Ignore production losses / deferment due to equipment failure
• DO’s:
– Compare methods using a single formation-face operating
envelope
– Discuss options and requirement with other disciplines before
estimating budget needs

Agenda

• Step 1: Screen
• Step 3: Select
• Summary

AL Selection: Select Phase
• Quantitative analysis – economics

• Evaluate NPV of using different systems
Economics
3. Select and
Scorecards
• Understand where value is generated and lost

• Optimize design

• Build cash flows for different alternatives and calculate NPV

– CAPEX (surface and well equipment)
+ Production
– Operating costs (energy. personnel, normal maintenance)
– Downtime deferred / lost production (due to failure)
– Intervention costs
– Equipment replacement
– Abandonment costs
+ Salvage value

• Compare NPVs
Value Comparison
70
60
50
NPV (MM $)
40
30
20
10
0
ALS #1 ALS #2 ALS #3
• Don’t stop here!

• Understand where value is gained or lost

160
140
120
NPV (MM$)
100
80
60
40
20
0

• Understand the prize for improving different areas

40
35
30
NPV (MM$)
25
20
15
10
5
CAPEX
0
Interventions
OPEX
Production Losses
Replace Equipment
Abandonment

• Maximize option NPV

– CAPEX
• Phase investment
– Interventions and production losses
• Have rig available on the field full time
• Design equipment to extend MTBF
– OPEX
• Analyze expenditures and identify opportunities for savings

Refine options
Refine budget Select and AL Contracting and
for design and
requirements system Procurement
implementation

Agenda

• Step 1: Screen
• Step 3: Select
• Summary

Summary
• Overall Process
– AL screening and selection is a process that needs to be clearly defined
and documented for quality assurance
– Most value can be created or lost at the design phase
– Multidisciplinary collaboration is required for optimized solutions
• Screening
– Attributes for screening can be defined based on project needs
– Scoring should be simple and documented to promote transparency
• Evaluation
– Formation-face operating envelope needs to be defined
– Design scenarios have to be considered for early, mid, and late life
– Test designs for suitability under uncertain scenario conditions
• Selection
– Calculate NPV
– Understand where value is gained or lost

Screening AL

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Screening AL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Artificial Lift Screening and Selection

• Introduction: The Need

9 Sep 2013 Artificial Lift Screening and Selection Page 2

• Introduction: The Need

9 Sep 2013 Artificial Lift Screening and Selection Page 3

• Liquid production profile with initial natural flow period

Increased need for energy to lift fluid

9 Sep 2013 Artificial Lift Screening and Selection Page 4

• Liquid production profile with AL inception on day 1

9 Sep 2013 Artificial Lift Screening and Selection Page 5

• In technical terms, we are always doing the same thing:

AL screening and selection is more than a technical exercise,

9 Sep 2013 Artificial Lift Screening and Selection Page 6

• Introduction: The Need

9 Sep 2013 Artificial Lift Screening and Selection Page 7

• What are the desirable characteristics in this process?

9 Sep 2013 Artificial Lift Screening and Selection Page 8

• Data gathering • FDP definition • Monitor

Artificial Lift Screening and Selection Progress

Little data Data for FDP Operations Data

9 Sep 2013 Artificial Lift Screening and Selection Page 9

9 Sep 2013 Artificial Lift Screening and Selection Page 10

• Three-step process and tools used

1. Screen Attribute tables

2. Evaluate LOF Design

Corrosive Potential for organic

9 Sep 2013 Artificial Lift Screening and Selection Page 12

• The main points are

9 Sep 2013 Artificial Lift Screening and Selection Page 13

• Introduction: The Need

9 Sep 2013 Artificial Lift Screening and Selection Page 14

Widely Used ... Less Used ... Even Less Used

9 Sep 2013 Artificial Lift Screening and Selection Page 15

Image courtesy of Weatherford

9 Sep 2013 Artificial Lift Screening and Selection Page 17

Image courtesy of Weatherford

9 Sep 2013 Artificial Lift Screening and Selection Page 19

Image courtesy of Weatherford

• Avoid water-handling challenges

9 Sep 2013 Artificial Lift Screening and Selection Page 21

Image courtesy of Weatherford

Image courtesy of Weatherford

• Enhance fluid handling capability

9 Sep 2013 Artificial Lift Screening and Selection Page 24

• Temperature and Fluids Sensitivity

9 Sep 2013 Artificial Lift Screening and Selection Page 26

Image courtesy of Weatherford

• Hydraulic Submersible Pump (HSP)

9 Sep 2013 Artificial Lift Screening and Selection Page 28

• Do not narrow down options too much at an early stage

9 Sep 2013 Artificial Lift Screening and Selection Page 29

• Introduction: The Need

9 Sep 2013 Artificial Lift Screening and Selection Page 30

• Qualitative comparison – eliminate unsuitable technologies

1. Screen Attribute tables

2. Evaluate LOF Design

• Attribute tables are preferred, and should be customized for

9 Sep 2013 Artificial Lift Screening and Selection Page 31

• Screening of High Rate Applications

Lift Depth (ft TVD)

9 Sep 2013 Artificial Lift Screening and Selection Page 32

• Screening of Low Rate Applications

Lift Depth (ft TVD)

9 Sep 2013 Artificial Lift Screening and Selection Page 33