Spe 181344 Ms

SPE-181344-MS
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings-pdf/16ATCE/3-16ATCE/D031S048R001/1356661/spe-181344-ms.pdf/1 by Oil & Natural Gas Corp. Ltd. ONGC user on 08 October 2021
Well Performance Calculations for Artificial Lift Screening
P. A. Kefford and M. Gaurav, Integrated Production Technologies Limited
Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Dubai, UAE, 26-28 September 2016.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.
Abstract
Having the means to efficiently evaluate different forms of artificial lift early in the planning cycle
significantly improves the ability to influence other planning decisions (well count, well design, facility
capacities etc.) and to realise the potential upsides made available by new artificial lift technologies.
Artificial lift screening involves evaluating multiple criteria including rate, well design, cost, reliability,
environmental impact, flow assurance, solids handling, operability etc. This paper focusses on a fit-for-
purpose methodology to evaluate well production performance for a wide range of artificial lift techniques
including Electric Submersible Pumps, Gas Lift, Sucker Rod Pumps, Progressing Cavity Pumps, Jet
Pumps, Hydraulic Submersible Pumps and Hydraulic Piston Pumps. The five important attributes of the
methodology presented are:
• Consistency: To ensure a fair comparison is made when evaluating each lift technique, the
same assumptions about reservoir performance, fluid properties, multi-phase flow behaviour,
geomechanics etc. are used.
• Auditability: Later in the development planning process, decisions and assumptions will inevitably
change, and it is important that there is a proper audit trail regarding how artificial lift screening
had been performed to help understand the potential impact of these changes.
• Efficiency: Early in the field planning cycle, many alternative well counts, well designs and facility
configurations will be under evaluation, and assumptions about reservoir and fluid properties will
be changing as new data become available. It is therefore important that the artificial lift screening
method can be readily applied to accommodate the many scenarios.
• Technical Rigour: While detailed artificial lift design is not required (or desired) at the screening
stage, it is important that the screening methodology applies a fit-for-purpose level of technical
rigour to ensure reliable results are achieved and opportunities are not missed through the
misapplication of various industry ‘rules of thumb’.
• Vendor Independence: While sufficient industry research is required to understand the available
technologies and new innovations, the screening process should be independent of any particular
equipment vendor to prevent any undue bias.
The well performance calculations use a nodal analysis approach to develop inflow and outflow curves at
the depth of the artificial lift equipment. Then, using knowledge of the fundamental operating principals of
2 SPE-181344-MS
the artificial lift techniques, calculations are performed to determine the range of production rates achievable
based on constraints including power, flow capacity and gas handling ability.
The paper will also present a range of real field cases where these screening calculations have been
applied to deep water subsea, onshore conventional and coalbed methane (CBM) developments.
Introduction
Figure 1 shows how, as we progress through a typical field development planning process, our ability to
influence decisions reduces as expenditures and commitments increase. Early in the field development or
redevelopment planning cycle, many options for well counts, field layouts, well designs, facilities concepts
etc. are evaluated. It is important that consideration of artificial lift methods is also included in these early
stages to ensure that:
• Selection of the most appropriate artificial lift technique is not unduly constrained by decisions
regarding other aspects of the field development.
• Potential upsides to asset value, such as reduced well count, lower power requirements or improved
reliability, which could be made available with the application of the right artificial lift technique,
are realised.
Figure 1—Field Development Planning Stage Gate Process
Figure 2 shows a typical artificial lift selection process. The first stage, screening, involves considering a
wide range of artificial lift techniques and their suitability regarding the fluid types, reservoir properties and
operating environment. Once a shortlist of feasible lift techniques is determined, a more in depth comparison
of these options is undertaken by forecasting the performance over the life of the field. Options for generating
such forecasts range from simple spreadsheet calculations through to fully integrated asset models coupling
detailed reservoir, well and facilities models. The choice of forecasting technology depends largely on the
field size and complexity. The next step is to perform an economic analysis to guide the ultimate selection of
the preferred lift technique(s). The economic analysis accounts for the capital and operational expenditure
(capex and opex) associated with each lift technique, and uses the production profile to generate net present
value (NPV) estimates.
SPE-181344-MS 3
Figure 2—An Artificial Lift Selection Process
The initial screening of artificial lift technologies involves consideration of multiple criteria that will have
varying degrees of significance depending on the specific reservoir properties and operating environment.
Table 1 shows common artificial lift screening criteria.
Table 1—Common Artificial Lift Screening Criteria
Well Productivity Operability Environmental Impact
Solids Handling Well Design Compatibility Flow Assurance
Reliability Gas Handling Facilities Requirements
Power Requirements Temperature Limits Reservoir Access
Local Knowledge / Support New Technology Risk Workover Cost
This paper focusses on the screening criteria related to a well's hydraulic performance, namely the
well productivity, gas handling ability and power requirements. Understanding what production rates are
achievable with each lift technique in a particular environment, and the interdependency these have on well
count, well design and facility capacities is key to maximising asset value. Equally, quantifying how the free
gas volume entering artificial lift equipment varies with drawdown and depth, and how this relates to the gas
handling capacity of the artificial lift equipment is necessary to ensure reliable operations without unduly
constraining production. Finally, the power requirements have a direct impact on opex and are therefore
important to quantify.
Historically, two approaches have been used to consider well hydraulic performance in artificial lift
screening, each at opposite ends of the ‘technical rigour’ vs. ‘rule of thumb’ spectrum:
• Depth vs. rate charts, such as those presented by Blais (1986), show how the capacities of different
lift methods vary with depth. Whilst recognized as being intended for guidance only, the use of such
charts and other rules of thumb can become misleading, particularly when considering operating
environments such as deep water subsea, heavy oil, gassy wells or slim-hole completions.
• Hydraulic modelling software packages are commercially available which predict well
performance under artificial lift and incorporate actual fluid properties, completion design and
operating environment. However, the majority of such software packages are intended for detailed
design of new equipment or detailed analysis and troubleshooting of existing installations. To
use such software packages for screening purposes requires the user to first design and select the
specific equipment, particularly for the pumped artificial lift techniques. Given the large number
4 SPE-181344-MS
of sensitivities typically required in artificial lift screening, having to perform a detailed equipment
design each time is an onerous distraction.
The method presented in this paper uses hydraulic modelling software to generate basic reservoir inflow
curves, tubing performance curves and tables of fluid properties. Then, using a fundamental understanding
of the operating principals of each lift technique, the flow capacity, head, power and gas handling
requirements are determined. These results are then compared with the current capacities of available
artificial lift technology to determine the maximum well productivity in each case.
Table 2 lists the artificial lift types which are considered in this paper along with a summary of the primary
energy source at surface, how the power is transmitted downhole and the category of pump type.
Table 2—Artificial Lift Types
Power Transfer
Surface Power Source (Surface to Pump Type
Downhole)
Electrical Submersible Pump (ESP) Transformer / VSD Electrical Dynamic Disp.

Electrical Submersible Progressing Cavity Pump
Transformer / VSD Electrical Positive Disp.
(ES-PCP)
Rod Driven Progressing Cavity Pump (RD-PCP) Electrical Motor Mechanical Positive Disp.
Sucker Rod Pump (SRP) Prime Mover Mechanical Positive Disp.
Jet Pump (JP) Power Fluid Pump Hydraulic Dynamic Disp.
Hydraulic Piston Pump (HPP) Power Fluid Pump Hydraulic Positive Disp.
Hydraulic Submersible Pump (HSP) Power Fluid Pump Hydraulic Dynamic Disp.
Gas Lift (GL) Compressor Lift Gas N/A
Methodology
The two key steps for performing the calculations are as follows:
• Understand the artificial lift equipment capabilities
• Calculate the well's artificial lift requirements
The following describes each of these steps in detail.
Artificial Lift Equipment Capabilities

When considering the hydraulic performance of an artificial lift technique, it is important to understand
what the capabilities of the particular lift technique are. Several authors have documented the capabilities
of various lift techniques over the years (Neely et al. 1981, Clegg et al. 1993, Lea et al. 1999, Oyewole et
al. 2008, Bellarby 2009). These references provide a useful understanding of artificial lift capabilities, but
it is also important to conduct fresh industry research to ensure that any new advances in technology and
new products are included in the analysis. For each lift technique, the following metrics are important:
• Fluid flow rate capacity
• Gas handling capacity
• Net positive suction head
• Head capacity
• Setting depth and dogleg severity

SPE-181344-MS 5
• Power capacity
• Efficiency
The following sections discuss each of these in further detail.

Fluid Flow Rate Capacity. For the majority of lift techniques, the flow capacity is defined in terms of
the total volumetric fluid flow rate at pump suction conditions. This maximum flow capacity is related
to the diameter of the pumping equipment and therefore to the casing or tubing size being proposed. The
requirement for bypass tubing, to facilitate natural flow and/or reservoir access, will add another constraint
to the pump size that should be considered. Understanding the relationship between pump capacity and
casing size is particularly important when considering slim-hole casing designs. Manufacturers' equipment
catalogues are a useful source of information to develop and maintain a database of flow rate capacities
for different housing sizes.
Gas Handling Capacity. Typically, the gas handling capacity is defined as the maximum free gas fraction
(FGF) or vapour-liquid ratio (VLR) at pump suction conditions. Different artificial lift techniques have
varying tolerances to free gas. ESPs, SRPs and HPPs can experience gas locking at high free gas fractions,
and PCPs can experience temperature related elastomer damage due to ‘dry running’ at high free gas
fractions (Hua et al. 2011). Gas separation, whereby free gas is separated from the fluid at the pump suction
and takes an alternative flow path to surface, might be an option for certain lift techniques depending on
the well completion (Harun et al. 2002 and 2003). For ESPs, there are options to improve gas handling
capability such as flow homogenisers and axial flow stages (Camilleri et al. 2011, Bagci et al. 2010). Gas
handling in PCPs can be improved with the use of all metal pump designs (Arredondo et al. 2014).
Table 3 shows gas handling capacities noted by various authors. For the same lift technique, some degree
of variation in the limits can be seen. If the gas handling requirement is found to be critical, and the
actual free gas fractions approach the values shown, then further investigation should be undertaken into
analogue applications and with equipment vendors. It is also important that research into new technology
developments be performed to understand if and how gas handling capabilities have improved.
Table 3—Artificial Lift Free Gas Fraction Limitations
5-10% Gas locking for conventional radial flow pump (Bellarby 2009,
Chap. 6.3.3.)
VLR = 3Psuc (Turpin et al. 1980) Correlation for conventional radial flow
ESP pump showing dependency on suction pressure.
70% Using helicoaxial pump stages (Camilleri et al. 2011)
75% Using gas handling technology (Bagci et al. 2010)
33% Due to dry running and overheating of elastomer stator (Hua et al.
PCP 2011)
60% Using all metal PCP (Arredondo et al. 2014)
SRP 50% Limit related to gas locking (Clegg et al. 1993)
Free gas in a jet pump can lead to critical flow and reduce capacity
JP
(Verma et al. 2014)
HPP 50% (Brown 1980, Chap. 5.824)
70% Using helicoaxial impeller design (Bhatia et al. 2014)

HSP
75% (Mali et al. 2010)
No upper limit as such. The benefit of gas lift will potentially be reduced,
GL
or even detrimental, in high free gas environments.
6 SPE-181344-MS
Net Positive Suction Head Required (NPSHr). In wells with low bottomhole pressure, such as gas or
coalbed methane (CBM) dewatering applications, the NPSHr is an important consideration. As fluid moves
through a pump, there is typically an initial drop in pressure as fluid is accelerated through the eye of an
impeller, across an inlet valve or into the throat of a jet pump for example (Figure 3). If the fluid falls
below the vapour pressure, then cavitation can occur whereby small vapour bubbles are formed which
rapidly collapse when the pressure increases again. This collapse causes a shock wave that can damage
the internals of the pumping equipment (Takacs 2009, Chap. 2.2.2.4). The minimum pressure difference
required between the pump inlet and the vapour pressure to prevent cavitation is the NPSHr.
Figure 3—Net Positive Suction Head Required (NPSHr)
Bassett (2006) provides a useful discussion on NPSHr values for different artificial lift techniques. Table
4 shows ranges of NPSHr values suggested by various authors. These ranges are considered suitable for
screening purposes but if actual values are expected to approach these limits then further detailed work into
the specifics of the given application is required.
Table 4—NPSHr Values
20 – 30 psi (46 – 70 ft) in all liquid (Simpson et al. 2003)

ESP
64 psig for a standard ESP, 16 psig for a CBM specific ESP (Bassett 2006)
60 ft (Simpson et al. 2003)

PCP
25 psig (Bassett 2006)
75 – 100 ft (Simpson et al. 2003)

SRP
32 psig (Bassett 2006)
JP 86 psig (in a 1,200 ft well) (Bassett 2006)
Head Capacity. The head rating of a piece of lift equipment is directly related to the maximum pressure
differential (discharge pressure minus suction pressure) that it can achieve. The head rating of ESPs, PCPs
and HSPs can be increased by lengthening the pump (i.e. increasing the number of stages or cavities) but
there are practical limits to how long the pump assemblies can be. Pump manufacturers typically include
the head ratings in their equipment catalogues. SRPs can become limited by rod strength in deeper wells.
Charts presented by Lea et al (1999) indicate suitability of SRPs for depths up to 11,000 ft. If SRPs are
SPE-181344-MS 7
to be considered for depths exceeding or approaching this, then more detailed analysis into rod loading
is required. The head rating of jet pumps and HPPs is best considered in terms of the overall hydraulic
performance discussed later.
Setting Depth and Dogleg Severity (DLS). Generally speaking, from a hydraulic performance perspective,
it is preferable to position artificial lift equipment as close as possible to the reservoir. The key reasons for
this are firstly that the fluid will be at a higher pressure reducing the risk of gas interference, and secondly
it is possible to achieve higher drawdown. Some exceptions to this include: high temperature wells where
it may be preferred to position a pump at a shallower depth (where it is cooler, to prolong run-life), in
high productivity wells with low GOR (where high drawdowns are not required) and with hydraulic lift
techniques where the power fluid returns cause excessive frictional pressure drop.
The casing scheme and the trajectory of the well will influence the maximum depth where artificial lift
equipment can be installed. Different lift techniques have different clearance requirements and are able to
pass through varying degrees of dogleg severity, as shown in Table 5. The table shows some variation in
DLS values for each lift technique because the exact limits will depend on the equipment sizes and casing
sizes. If the proposed wellbore trajectory is likely to have a build radius or dogleg approaching the values
shown in Table 5, then more detailed bend analysis is required.
Table 5—Artificial Lift Dogleg Severity Limits
3°/100ft for standard equipment, up to 12°/100ft using specialist equipment (Gallup et al. 1990)
ESP 20°/100ft in 7" Casing, 12°/100ft in 5-1/2" Casing (Bassett 2010)
10°/100ft in the build section, 3°/100ft in the ESP tangent (Gray 2015)
15°/100ft (Taufan et al. 2005)

ES-PCP
1.5-3.5°/100ft with pump landed in horizontal (Garcia 2013)
RD-PCP 4.5°/100ft (Correa et al. 2013)
15°/100ft using rod guides (Clegg et al. 1993)

SRP
12-16°/100ft depending on hole size, using ‘molded on’ rod guides (Cortines et al. 1992)
JP 24°/100ft in 2" tubing (Clegg et al. 1993)
12°/100ft in 5-1/2" casing (Pugh et al. 2011)

HPP
"If tubing can be run in the well, pump normally will pass through the tubing" (Clegg et al. 1993)
HSP 6°/100ft, with 200ft tangent section < 1°/100ft where the pump is landed
Dogleg severity not typically an issue but conventional wireline access (for valve change-outs)
GL limited to 70° deviation (Clegg et al. 1993)
Wireline tractor technology is available for deviations > 60° (Chow et al. 2012)
The maximum setting depth for rod driven lift techniques (SRP and RD-PCP) can also be limited by rod
and tubing wear in wells with high dogleg severity and deviations. In such environments, more detailed
torque and drag analysis is required.
Power Capacity. For the electrical downhole driven lift techniques (ESP and ES-PCP) the maximum shaft
power which the motor can supply is considered. The maximum power rating of the motor is related to the
casing size and can become a constraint particularly when dealing with slim-hole casing designs. Motor
manufacturers provide catalogue data showing what nameplate powers are available for given housing
diameters.
8 SPE-181344-MS
In surface motor driven lift techniques (RD-PCP and SRP) there are less space restrictions and so the
maximum horsepower requirement is not a technological constraint in itself. Drive rod torque and drag
loads can however become a constraint, particularly in highly deviated wells as discussed earlier.
For the hydraulically driven lift techniques, while the surface power requirements may be high, they are
generally not a constraint from a technological point of view. What can cause a limitation is the frictional
pressure losses involved in transferring the power fluid from surface to the downhole location and, for
certain lift techniques, inefficiencies involved in transferring energy from the power fluid to the reservoir
fluid. The power fluid pressure and rate requirements are considered in conjunction with the well hydraulic
performance, as discussed later.
Efficiency. Calculating the power required by each lift technique requires an understanding of the efficiency
with which the power supplied at surface is converted to useful work in boosting the pressure of the
produced fluids. In order to make a meaningful comparison between the power requirements of different lift
techniques a common reference point, where the power is supplied, must be considered. The efficiencies
used should incorporate estimates of all losses from this common reference point to the point where the
hydraulic power is supplied to the reservoir fluid. The efficiency used for each lift technique should not be
the ‘best efficiency point’ as it is unlikely the well will operate at that point for any appreciable length of
time. Instead, a judgment should be made regarding the likely average efficiency which will be achieved
over the life of the installation.
Table 6 presents a summary of artificial lift efficiencies suggested by various authors. Again, it is
recommended that research into any new advances in technology be performed before undertaking any
analysis.
Table 6—Artificial Lift Efficiencies
50% overall efficiency (pump, motor, cable)(Bellarby 2009 Chap. 6.3.1.)
ESP 33-41% overall system efficiency (Takacs 2011)
50% overall system efficiency (Clegg et al. 1993)
>80% hydraulic efficiency (Bellarby 2009, Chap. 6.6.1.) - need to include motor and mechanical
ES-PCP & RD-PCP losses for rod driven option and electrical losses for submersible motor driven option.
50-70% overall system efficiency (Clegg et al. 1993)
SRP 50-56% overall system efficiency (Takacs 2011)
10-20% operating efficiency (Clegg et al. 1993)

JP
20-25% hydraulic efficiency (Brown 1980, his Fig. 6.6)
Volumetric efficiency: 90% @ engine end, 85% @ pump end and no load DP from Brown (1980,
HPP
his Fig. 5.45)
HSP 50% combined turbine and pump hydraulic efficiency (Brook et al. 2014)
Table 6 shows a combination of hydraulic, volumetric and overall system efficiencies. These are used in
different ways, as discussed later, to enable like for like power requirement comparisons to be made.
Well Artificial Lift Requirements

Once the capabilities of each lift technique are understood, the next step is to determine what the actual well
conditions will be, and what requirements will be placed on the artificial lift equipment.
These calculations can be approached in two ways, although in both cases the underlying methodology
is the same:
SPE-181344-MS 9
• Maximum Rate: Early in the field or well planning cycle it is useful to understand the maximum
production rate achievable with each lift technique.
• Target Rate: During the various planning phases, expected or target rates are often considered
for the wells. In this situation, it is more useful to determine if the artificial lift technique can
achieve that rate and what the associated power requirements would be. This also allows for a
direct comparison of the power requirements and running costs.
In reality, some combination of the maximum rate and target rate calculations will be required during
the screening process. It is also important to consider the anticipated life of well operating conditions when
determining the lift requirements. Forecast reservoir pressure, inflow performance, water cut and GOR
should be used to determine early, mid and late life operating conditions as a minimum. As mentioned
earlier, this is considered sufficient for screening purposes. Once a short list of preferred lift techniques is
established, more in depth analysis is recommended using coupled reservoir, well and facilities modeling
to generate production forecasts.
Figure 4 shows an overview of the artificial lift requirements calculation process. The following sections
describe each of the steps in the calculations.
Figure 4—Overview of Calculation Process
Pump Suction Curve. The pump suction curve describes the pressure vs. rate relationship at the pump
suction conditions. It can be thought of as the inflow performance curve translated to the depth where the
artificial lift equipment would be installed. An example pump suction curve is shown in Figure 5. The
shallower the artificial lift equipment is placed, the lower the pressure will be as it arrives at the pump.
A commercially available well modelling software package is used to calculate the pump suction curve.
The key parameters affecting the pump suction curve are the fluid properties, reservoir properties (inflow
performance), the depth of the pump and frictional losses between the reservoir and pump suction.
10 SPE-181344-MS
Figure 5—System Analysis Curves
Pump Discharge Curve. The pump discharge curve shows the pressure required at the outlet of the pump to
lift the reservoir fluid to surface at a given wellhead pressure. An example pump discharge curve is shown in
Figure 5. Again, a commercially available well modelling package is used to calculate the pump discharge
curve. They key parameters which affect the pump discharge curve are the fluid properties, the depth of the
pump and the dimensions of the flow conduit from the pump to surface.
Where downhole separation is used to reduce free gas entering the pump, the GOR used to calculate the
pump discharge pressure requirements is adjusted as per Eq. 1.
(1)
For rod driven lift techniques (SRP and RD-PCP) the reduction in flow area is incorporated into the flow
conduit description by considering annular flow between the tubing and drive rods.
For hydraulically driven lift techniques with commingled power fluid returns (JP, HPP and HSP) the
fluid flow rate is adjusted for the presence of the power fluid. An initial assumption of power fluid ratio
(φpf) is made and used to adjust the liquid rate above the pump (Eq. 2). The water cut and GOR are also
adjusted using Eqs. 4 and 5 or 6 and 7 depending on whether oil or water will be used as the power fluid.
It may be necessary to iterate on the power fluid ratio to obtain an acceptable power fluid surface pressure
as described later.
(2)
Where
(3)
Using oil as the power fluid:

SPE-181344-MS 11
(4)
(5)
Using water as the power fluid:
(6)
(7)
When considering the option of gas lift, a well performance modelling software package is used to
generate tubing performance curves incorporating the effect of gas lift directly. A sensitivity analysis is
performed considering both the required gas lift injection pressure (affecting the depth of injection) and gas
lift rate to identify the preferred parameters for the prevailing conditions.
Flow Capacity Requirement. With a good understanding of the pump suction and discharge conditions,
it is possible to determine the pump capacity requirements. The flow rate entering the pump is determined
using Eq. 8 with the fluid properties evaluated at the pump suction pressure and temperature.
(8)
Where:
(9)
(10)
(11)
Gas Handling Requirement. The free gas fraction (FGF) entering the pump is a function of the fluid
properties, suction pressure, temperature and gas separation efficiency (if applicable). Eqs. 12 and 13 are
used to determine the free gas fraction or vapour-liquid ratio (VLR) at the pump suction.
(12)
Or:
(13)
Head Requirement. The head required is determined using the pressure rise across the pump and the fluid
properties as shown in Eq. 14.
(14)
Where:
12 SPE-181344-MS
(15)
Power Fluid Requirement. For the hydraulically driven lift techniques, it is necessary to first determine
the power fluid rate and pressure, and then the horsepower required to generate that power fluid can be
calculated. By equating the power supplied by the power fluid to the power required by the reservoir fluid, it
is possible to determine the downhole power fluid pressure. For jet pump and HSP lift methods, a hydraulic
efficiency (ηhyd) relating the power supplied by the power fluid to the power received by the reservoir fluid
is used as per Eq. 16.
(16)
Eq. 16 can be rearranged to give the downhole power fluid pressure (Eq. 17).
(17)
For HPPs the efficiency is considered in terms of pump and engine volumetric efficiencies (ηpmp and ηeng)
and mechanical friction losses as shown in Eq. 18.
(18)
Eq. 18 can be re-arranged to give the downhole power fluid pressure where the losses are described in
terms of a ‘no load dP’ (Eq. 19).
(19)
Where φP/E is the pump to engine ratio calculated by Eq. 20:
(20)
And the No Load DP is determined from charts given by Brown (1980, his Fig. 5.45) or approximated
to 600 psi for screening purposes.
The downhole power fluid pressure is then used to determine the surface pressure requirement as per Eq.
21. The power fluid is incompressible single phase oil or water; therefore, the gravity pressure drop can
be estimated using the power fluid density and TVD of the pump. For the frictional component, relatively
straightforward calculations have been presented by various authors (e.g. Perry et al, 1997, his Chap. 6).
Frictional pressures losses should not be ignored as they can be significant at high power fluid rates and /
or if the flow area is small, for example in the case of jet pump insert string completions.
(21)
At this stage, the calculated power fluid surface pressure is reviewed. If the power fluid rate for a given
surface pressure constraint is required, then an iterative procedure is performed whereby the power fluid
ratio used in the generation of the earlier pump discharge pressure curves is adjusted and the calculations
re-run. Typical power fluid injection pressures fall in the range of 2,000 to 5,000 psig. At pressures higher
than this, special consideration would need to be given to wellhead pressure ratings. If the calculated power
fluid pressure is too high, then a higher power fluid rate can be used or vice versa. It is not necessary to
optimize power fluid pressure / rate combinations during artificial lift screening, but rather determine if
suitable operating conditions can be identified.
SPE-181344-MS 13
Some sense checks are performed on the resulting power fluid rates. Use of standard nozzle / throat ratios
for jet pumps would require a power fluid ratio in the range of 0.3 to 5 (Christ et al. 1986, his Fig. 2).
Also, the nozzle size required to deliver the power fluid at the given pressures is calculated using Eq. 22
rearranged from Grupping et al. (1988, his Eq. 14). This nozzle size is then compared with manufacturers'
catalogue data to ensure it falls within the range of available sizes.
(22)
Typical power fluid ratios (Qlpf/Qlblwpmp) for HPPs are in the range of 0.5 to 2.
Power Requirement. The calculation of power requirement depends on the lift technique. For the electrical
and mechanically driven lift techniques, the surface power requirement is calculated based on the downhole
hydraulic power and the overall system efficiency (ηtot) discussed earlier. Eq. 23 shows the power calculation
for these lift techniques.
(23)
When pumping fluids with high viscosity the power requirement will be higher than would be calculated
using Eq. 23. Takacs (2009, his Table 4.1) presents a table of correction factors for capacity, head, efficiency
and power versus viscosity which can be used for screening purposes.
For the hydraulically driven lift techniques the power requirement relates to the generation of the power
fluid at surface. Eq. 24 is used to calculate the power based on the power fluid surface pressure and an
estimate of the separator pressure (i.e. the starting pressure of the power fluid).
(24)
For the gas lift option, the power requirement relates to the compression of the lift gas. Eq. 25 from
(GPSA, 2004 Chap. 13) and incorporating a mechanical efficiency and number of stages is used to estimate
the compressor power requirement.
(25)
Where:
ηp is the polytropic efficiency, 0.85 can be used as a typical value.
ηmech is the mechanical efficiency, 0.85 can be used for estimating purposes.
k is the ratio of specific heats, a value of 1.21 can be used screening calculations.
ns is the number of compression stages which is estimated using Eq. 26.
(26)
Where φcomp_max is the maximum compression ratio per stage. A value of 3 can be used when performing
high level estimates.
14 SPE-181344-MS
Presentation of Data and Results

The calculations and workflows described in this document were automated in a custom built software
application which links with a 3rd party well performance modelling package to generate fluid property
tables, inflow performance curves and tubing performance curves.
The following sections show results from the application of these workflows in a number of different
field development / redevelopment studies.
Case Study 1. The first example is from a screening study on new deep water oil field. As well as evaluating
different artificial lift techniques, one of the specific objectives here was to understand if an HSP could
achieve the same deliverability as an ESP for the life of field operating conditions and, if so, what would
be the impact on well design. General reservoir parameters were as follows:
• Water depth: 3,500 ft TVDSS
• Reservoir TVD: 7,600 ft TVDSS
• API Oil Density: 22 - 24°
• Solution GOR: 200 - 500 scf/STB
• Oil Viscosity: 5 - 10 cP at reservoir conditions
• Bubble point: 2,400 – 3,300 psig
The results from reservoir and subsea system simulations were used to identify typical early, mid and late
life conditions. This example focusses on the mid-life reservoir conditions, these are summarised as follows:
• Producing GOR: 1,800 scf/STB
• Producing Water cut: 56%
• Reservoir Pressure: 2,370 psig
• Wellhead Pressure: 1,800 psig (1,200 psig for the gas lift case)
• The target liquid rate: 10,000 STB/D.
Figure 6 shows the reservoir inflow and pump suction curves that are common to both the ESP and HSP
cases. Note that in this figure, the pump suction and inflow performance curves are overlaying because the
pump depth is so close to the reservoir. The ESP pump discharge curve was generated using 5 ½″ tubing.
Initially 7″ tubing was considered for the HSP to accommodate the power fluid returns; however, the analysis
showed that 9 5/8″ tubing would be required to effectively mitigate the excessive frictional pressure losses.
The pump discharge curves for the HSP with 7″ tubing and 9 5/8″ tubing terminate at the rate where it is no
longer possible to produce with a power fluid surface pressure of 4,500 psig (as per the wellhead limits).
The pump discharge curves for the HSP cases show higher discharge pressure requirements than the ESP
because of the presence of the associated power fluid.
SPE-181344-MS 15
Figure 6—Case Study 1: ESP, HSP and GL Inflow and Outflow Curves
The gas lifted VLP curve is also included in this plot. Note that a lower wellhead pressure was considered
for the gas lift case because separate calculations on the riser pressure drop showed that the density reduction
due to the gas lift would have the added benefit of reducing the wellhead pressures. The maximum liquid
rate achievable with gas lift in this well at mid-life conditions was 5,000 STB/D as compared to a target
liquid rate of 10,000 STB/D.
Figure 7 shows the free gas fraction at pump suction conditions. The free gas fraction curve is the same
for both the ESP and HSP because they are located at the same depth. At the target rate of 10,000 STB/D
the free gas fraction is 54% which is below the maximum for a gas handling ESP and an HSP.
Figure 7—Case Study 1: Pump Suction Free Gas Handling Requirements

16 SPE-181344-MS
Figure 8 shows the HSP power fluid requirements, based on a maximum power fluid surface pressure of
4,500 psig. The plot shows that the maximum reservoir rate achievable with 7″ tubing is ca. 7,500 STB/D
before excessive frictional pressure losses mean a higher power fluid pressure is required. To achieve the
target rate of 10,000 STB/D requires the larger tubing size of 9 5/8″. Also shown is the gas lift requirement.
The plot shows the required gas lift rate increasing rapidly above 4,500 STB/D and that rates above 5,000
STB/D are not possible under these conditions.
Figure 8—Case Study 1: Power Fluid and Gas Lift Requirements
Figure 9 shows the power requirements of the gas lift, ESP and HSP cases. To achieve the target rate
of 10,000 STB/D requires approximately 1,000 hp for an ESP and 3,500 hp for an HSP. The additional
power for an HSP is due to inefficiencies in the power fluid pumping, frictional losses as the power fluid
passes down the annulus, and additional losses as the power fluid is produced back up the well. Based on
the power requirements alone, ESPs appeared to be the more attractive option. When flow assurance and
reliability issues were taken into account it was decided to take both ESPs and HSPs forward to the next
stage of artificial lift selection, i.e. production forecasting using an integrated asset model (Figure 2).
SPE-181344-MS 17
Figure 9—Case Study 1: Power Requirements
Case Study 2. The second example is taken from a workover campaign in a marginal onshore carbonate oil
field. The majority of the wells were jet pumped; however, production was constrained due to limited power
fluid availability. The use of alternative lift methods for the workover candidates was therefore investigated.
• Reservoir TVD: 3,600 ft TVD
• Reservoir Pressure: 600 psig
• API Oil Density: 38°
• Solution GOR: 20 - 30 scf/STB
• Oil Viscosity: 3 cP at reservoir conditions
• Bubble point: 230 psig
• Water cut: 80%
Figure 10 shows the dogleg severity profile in one of the candidate wells. Due to the high dogleg severity,
an ESP could only be placed as deep as 1,970 ft MD. A PCP could be placed a little deeper at 2,740 ft MD.
Only the jet pump and HPP could be placed close to the reservoir (3,720 ft MD). HPPs were considered to
be potentially viable in this field because of the negligible solids production, extremely low GOR reservoir
fluid and the existing power fluid processing and distribution system.
18 SPE-181344-MS
Figure 10—Case Study 2: Dogleg Severity
Figure 11 shows the pump suction and discharge pressure curves for the different lift techniques. The plot
shows the calculated ESP suction pressures as being zero psig because the pump is set so shallow that the
fluid cannot reach it. This effectively rules out the option of an ESP for this well. The PCP, being set slightly
deeper, can flow at limited drawdowns but there would still be potential issues in priming the pump. It is only
with a jet pump or HPP, being located close to the reservoir, that any appreciable drawdown can be applied.
Figure 11—Case Study 2: Inflow and Outflow Curves
Figure 12 shows the estimated power fluid requirements with an injection pressure of 2,100 psig (the
capacity of the existing power fluid pumps). It can be seen that the power fluid rate for an HPP would be
approximately 50% of the rate required for the jet pump. This is because of the superior efficiency of an
HPP compared to a jet pump. Figure 13 shows the corresponding power requirements to generate the power
fluid, which follow a similar trend.
SPE-181344-MS 19
Figure 12—Case Study 2: JP and HPP Power Fluid Requirements
Figure 13—Case Study 2: PCP, JP and HPP Power Requirements
In this field the use of HPPs was taken forward in the workover campaign as a way of using the available
power fluid more efficiently and freeing up capacity to be used in other wells.
Case Study 3. The final example is taken from a CBM dewatering study. To allow the liquid level in the
wellbore to be drawn down beneath the coal seams, the well was drilled with a sump to accommodate the
artificial lift equipment. The depth of the sump provided an NPSH of approximately 250 psig. Experience
20 SPE-181344-MS
on earlier wells in the field indicated that the artificial lift would need to produce approximately 200 STB/
D of water to maintain the liquid level beneath the coals.
For the jet pump completion option, a concentric string design was proposed comprising a 1.66″ internally
jointed power fluid string inside 2 7/8″ tubing. The power fluid returns and produced water would be
produced up the 1.66″ × 2 7/8″ annulus leaving the 2 7/8″ tubing × 7″ casing annulus free for the produced
gas. Figure 14 shows a schematic of the completions considered.
Figure 14—Case Study 3: CBM Completion Options
Figure 15 shows the required pump discharge pressures for each of the artificial lift options considered.
It can be seen how the required discharge pressure for a jet pump increased more rapidly than the other
lift techniques. This is due to the additional frictional pressure losses because of the reduced flow area and
increased volumetric rate. This analysis showed that the maximum water rate achievable with the proposed
concentric string jet pump completion would be 250 to 300 STB/D which is in excess of the expected water
rate of 200 STB/D.
SPE-181344-MS 21
Figure 15—Case Study 3: ESP, PCP, SRP and JP Suction and Discharge Curves
Figure 16 shows the jet pump power fluid requirements with a maximum surface pressure of 2,500 psig.
It can be seen how the power fluid requirement starts to increase rapidly to produce water rates greater than
250 STB/D, and due to the increased frictional losses it quickly becomes impossible to produce higher rates
without increasing the surface pressure.
Figure 16—Case Study 3: JP Power Fluid Requirements

22 SPE-181344-MS
Figure 17 shows the power requirements associated with each lift technique. The jet pump power
requirements were notably higher than the other lift techniques due to the lower efficiency. Despite the
greater power requirement, it was decided to trial the concentric string jet pump completion in this well.
Some of the key reasons for this were concerns regarding the other lift techniques:
• Capital cost, reliability, and difficulty producing at low rates associated with ESPs.
• Rod – tubing wear, achieving the right rotor / stator fit, and the impact on reliability of PCPs.
• Rod – tubing wear in a deviated well and the visual impact of SRPs.
Figure 17—Case Study 3: ESP, PCP, SRP and JP Power Requirements
The jet pump trial was successful and similar completions were planned in other wells in the field.
Conclusions
The methodology presented in this paper has been successfully implemented to allow fit-for-purpose
screening of artificial lift technology as well as providing a quantitative understanding of the
interdependency with other development considerations specific to the field (well count, well trajectory,
completion design etc.)
The methodology provides sufficient technical rigour for application to a wider range of field types than
standard depth vs. rate charts but does not require detailed artificial lift designs to be performed for every
sensitivity. An understanding of the key artificial lift capabilities has been combined with the fundamental
operating principals of each lift technique to facilitate the screening process.
The approach allows each artificial lift technique to be evaluated in a consistent manner (same fluid
property modelling, same multi-phase flow correlations etc.) and is independent of any individual equipment
vendor.
The screening calculations presented have been successfully applied at the early development planning
stages on a wide variety of field types ranging from deep water oil fields through to coalbed methane
developments.
SPE-181344-MS 23
Nomenclature
Subscript Description
abvpmp Above the pump
avg Average (of suction and discharge conditions)
blwpmp Below the pump
comp Compression
dis Pump or compressor discharge conditions
eng Related to the engine part of a hydraulic piston pump
g Gas
hyd Hydraulic
inj Relating to gas lift injection
24 SPE-181344-MS
max Maximum
mech Mechanical
mix Mixture
n Jet Pump Nozzle
o Oil
p Polytropic
P/E Pump to engine displacement
pf Power Fluid
pmp Related to the pump
s Stages
sep Separation
suc Pump or compressor suction conditions
tot Total
w Water
wh Relating to the wellhead location
References
Arredondo, M., Morety, R., Delgado, A., et al. 2014. All Metal PCP Experiences in Orinoco Belt. Presented at the SPE
Artificial Lift Conference & Exhibition — North America, Houston, Texas, USA, 6 – 8 October. SPE-171370-MS.
Bagci, A.S., Kece, M. and Nava, J. 2010. Challenges of Using Electrical Submersible Pump (ESP) in High Free Gas
Applications. Presented at the CPS/SPE International Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition, Beijing, China, 8 – 10
June. SPE-131760-MS.
Bassett, L. 2006. Guidelines to Successful Dewatering of CBM Wells. Presented at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting,
Canton, Ohio, USA, 11 – 13 October. SPE-104290-MS.
Bassett, L. 2010. Case History Using ESP's to De-Water Horizontal Wells. Presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas
Conference and Exhibition, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, 18-20 October. SPE-133464-MS.
Bellarby, J. 2009. Well Completion Design, first edition. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
Bhatia, A. and McAllister, S.A.L. 2014. Artificial Lift: Focus on Hydraulic Submersible Pumps. The Way Ahead, Vol.
10, No. 3: 29–31.
Blais, R. 1986. Artificial Lift Methods. Tulsa, Oklahoma: PennWell Publishing Co.
Brook, G. and Lovick, J. 2014. System Design and Flow Assurance Implications of Hydraulic Submersible Pumps for
Artificial Lift. Presented at the SPE Annual Caspian Technical Conference and Exhibition, Astana, Kazakhstan, 12-14
November. SPE-172335-MS.
Brown, K.E. 1980. The Technology of Artificial Lift Methods Vol. 2b. Tulsa, Oklahoma: PennWell Publishing Company.
Camilleri, L., Brunet, L., and Segui, E. 2011. Poseidon Gas Handling Technology: A Case Study of Three ESP Wells
in the Congo. Presented at the SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference, Manama, Bahrain, 6-9 March.
SPE-141668-MS.
Chow, H., Hellmann, D., Condio, J., et al. 2012. High-Angle Gas Lift Valve Removal and Replacement in a Single Run.
Presented at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing & Well Intervention Conference & Exhibition, The Woodlands, Texas,
USA, 27-28 March. SPE-154417-MS.
Christ, F.C. and Petrie, H.L. 1986. Obtaining Low Bottomhole Pressures in Deep Wells With Hydraulic Jet Pumps.
Presented at the SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting, Billings, Montana, 19-20 May. SPE-15177.
Clegg, J.D., Bucaram, S.M., and Hein Jr., N.W. 1993. Recommendations and Comparisons for Selecting Artificial-Lift
Methods. SPE-24834.
Correa, S., Pertuz, G., Cuellar, H., et al. 2013. Successful PCP Applications in High Deviated Wells: Breaking Away
the Paradigm of PCP Only for Vertical or Low Deviated Wells in Colombia. Presented at the SPE Artificial Lift
Conference-Americas, Cartagena, Colombia, 21-22 May. SPE-165053-MS.
Cortines, J.M. and Hollabaugh G.S. 1992. Sucker-Rod Lift in Horizontal Wells in Pearsall Field, Texas. Presented at the
67th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington DC, USA, 4-7 October. SPE-24764-MS.
Gallup, A., Wilson, B.L., and Marshall, R. 1990. ESP's Placed in Horizontal Lateral Increase Production. Oil & Gas
Journal, Vol. 88, Issue 25.
Garcia, G.J. 2013. Rodless PCP Technology: From Theory to Reality; Analysisng One Year of Performance. Presented at
the SPE Heavy Oil Conference Canada, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 11-13 June 2013. SPE-165421-MS.
SPE-181344-MS 25
Gas Processors Suppliers Association (GPSA). 2004. Engineering Data Book, twelfth edition. Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
Gray, T.P. 2015. Maximizing Productivity Using High Angle Electric Submersible Pump Tangents. Presented at the SPE
Production and Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA, 1-5 March. SPE-173585-MS.
Grupping, A.W., Coppes, J.L.R., and Groot, J.G. 1988. Fundamentals of Oilwell Jet Pumping. SPE-15670-PA.
Harun, A.F., Prado, M.G., Shirazi, S.A., et al. 2002. An Improved Model for Predicting Separation Efficiency of a Rotary
Gas Separator in ESP Systems. First presented at 2000 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas,
USA, 1-4 October. SPE-77279-PA.
Harun, A.F., Prado, M.G., Serrano, J.C., et al. 2003. A Simple Model To Predict Natural Gas Separation Efficiency in
Pumped Wells. First presented at 2000 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA, 1-4 October.
SPE-81826-PA.
Hua, G., Falcone, G., Teodoriu, C., et al. 2011. Comparison of Multiphase Pumping Technologies for Subsea and
Downhole Applications. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, 30 October - 2
November. SPE-146784.
Lea, J.F. and Nickens, H.V. 1999. Selection of Artificial Lift. Presented at the SPE Mid-Continent Operations Symposium,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA, 28-31 March. SPE-52157-MS.
Mali, G., Morrison, A., Green, A., et al. 2010. Hydraulic Submersible Pumps: 10 Years Experience on a Heavy-Oil Field
in the North Sea. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Florence, Italy, 19-22 September.
SPE-135234-MS.
Neely, B., Gipson, F., Clegg, J., et al. 1981. Selection of Artificial Lift Method. Presented at the 56th Annual Fall Technical
Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 5-7 October.
SPE-10337-MS.
Oyewole, P.O. and Lea, J.F. 2008. Artificial Lift Selection Strategy for the Life of a Gas Well with some Liquid Production.
Presented and the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, USA, 21-24 September.
SPE-115950-MS.
Perry, R.H., Green, D.W. and Maloney, J.O. 1997. Perry's Chemical Engineers Handbook, seventh edition. USA,
McGraw-Hill.
Pugh, T. and Robison, C.E. 2011. Hydraulic Piston Pump for Dewatering Gas Wells. Presented at the SPE annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, USA, 30 October - 2 November. SPE-145749-MS.
Simpson, D.A., Lea, J.F. and Cox, J.C. 2003. Coal Bead Methane Production. Presented at the Production and Operations
Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA, 22-25 March. SPE-80900.
Takacs, G. 2009. Electrical Submersible Pumps Manual: Design, Operations, and Maintenance. Burlington,
Massachusetts: Gulf Professional Publishing.
Takacs, G., and Belhaj, H. 2011. Latest Technological Advances in Rod Pumping Allow Achieving Efficiencies Higher
Than With ESP Systems. Presented at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi,
UAE, 1-4 November. SPE-136880-PA.
Taufan, M., Adriansyah, R., and Satriana, D. 2005. Electrical Submersible Progressive Cavity Pump (ESPCP) Application
in Kuhn Horizontal Wells. Presented at the Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition, Jakarta, Indonesia,
5-7 April. SPE-93594-MS.
Turpin, J., Lea, J., and Bearden, J. 1980. Gas/Liquid Flow Through Centrifugal Pumps-Correlation of Data. Presented at
the International Pump Symposium, Texas A&M U., College Station, Texas, 1 September.
Verma, S., Ojha, S.P., Jha, M., et al. 2014. The Importance of Critical Flow Considerations in Understanding Jet Pump
Performance: The Mangala Field. Prepared for Presentation at the International Petroleum Technology Conference,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 10-12 December. IPTC-18167-MS.

Spe 181344 Ms

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spe 181344 Ms

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Spe 181344 Ms

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPE-181344-MS

P. A. Kefford and M. Gaurav, Integrated Production Technologies Limited

Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers

Figure 1—Field Development Planning Stage Gate Process

Table 1—Common Artificial Lift Screening Criteria

Well Productivity Operability Environmental Impact

Solids Handling Well Design Compatibility Flow Assurance

Reliability Gas Handling Facilities Requirements

Power Requirements Temperature Limits Reservoir Access

Local Knowledge / Support New Technology Risk Workover Cost

Table 2—Artificial Lift Types

Electrical Submersible Pump (ESP) Transformer / VSD Electrical Dynamic Disp.

• Understand the artificial lift equipment capabilities

• Calculate the well's artificial lift requirements

The following describes each of these steps in detail.

Artificial Lift Equipment Capabilities

• Fluid flow rate capacity

• Gas handling capacity

• Net positive suction head

• Setting depth and dogleg severity

The following sections discuss each of these in further detail.

Table 3—Artificial Lift Free Gas Fraction Limitations

70% Using helicoaxial pump stages (Camilleri et al. 2011)

75% Using gas handling technology (Bagci et al. 2010)

60% Using all metal PCP (Arredondo et al. 2014)

SRP 50% Limit related to gas locking (Clegg et al. 1993)

HPP 50% (Brown 1980, Chap. 5.824)

70% Using helicoaxial impeller design (Bhatia et al. 2014)

Figure 3—Net Positive Suction Head Required (NPSHr)

Table 4—NPSHr Values

20 – 30 psi (46 – 70 ft) in all liquid (Simpson et al. 2003)

60 ft (Simpson et al. 2003)

75 – 100 ft (Simpson et al. 2003)

JP 86 psig (in a 1,200 ft well) (Bassett 2006)

Table 5—Artificial Lift Dogleg Severity Limits

ESP 20°/100ft in 7" Casing, 12°/100ft in 5-1/2" Casing (Bassett 2010)

15°/100ft (Taufan et al. 2005)

RD-PCP 4.5°/100ft (Correa et al. 2013)

15°/100ft using rod guides (Clegg et al. 1993)

JP 24°/100ft in 2" tubing (Clegg et al. 1993)

12°/100ft in 5-1/2" casing (Pugh et al. 2011)

Table 6—Artificial Lift Efficiencies

50% overall efficiency (pump, motor, cable)(Bellarby 2009 Chap. 6.3.1.)

ESP 33-41% overall system efficiency (Takacs 2011)

50% overall system efficiency (Clegg et al. 1993)

50-70% overall system efficiency (Clegg et al. 1993)

SRP 50-56% overall system efficiency (Takacs 2011)

10-20% operating efficiency (Clegg et al. 1993)

Well Artificial Lift Requirements

Figure 4—Overview of Calculation Process

Using oil as the power fluid:

Presentation of Data and Results

• Water depth: 3,500 ft TVDSS

• Reservoir TVD: 7,600 ft TVDSS

• API Oil Density: 22 - 24°

• Solution GOR: 200 - 500 scf/STB

• Oil Viscosity: 5 - 10 cP at reservoir conditions

• Bubble point: 2,400 – 3,300 psig

• Producing GOR: 1,800 scf/STB