7th European Electric Submersible Pump Round Table Aberdeen Section

ESP Monitoring – Where’s your speedometer?

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

Abstract
It is estimated that some two percent of all electrical submersible pumps (ESPs) in the world have some form of downhole sensor installed. This is a very small sensor population in relation to the number of ESPs. Reliable sensor technology has been available for a number of years and yet the majority of ESPs do not have sensors installed. Part of the reason that sensors are not installed and used more widely is because of the outdated techniques used by ESP manufacturers to diagnose and troubleshoot ESP performance. Operators can use a downhole sensor to obtain a direct measurement of ESP and well performance. Direct accurate measurements are of more value than a simulated or calculated value. This paper will outline the direct measurements that can be taken and illustrate how they can be used, real-time, to increase production, diagnose well and ESP performance and achieve protection and control of the ESP system to extend ESP runlife. The use of direct measurements of performance, control, analysis and design are the key steps in most continuous improvement processes (figure 1). Use of measured data from a downhole sensor is the first step in implementing a continuous improvement process for the ESP-produced well. However, to benefit from this data we need to change the way we design, operate, troubleshoot and optimise ESPs and use pressures rather than electrical parameters. This paper will discuss how monitoring of ESPs has evolved and identify the steps that need to be taken to make use of the data obtained from a downhole sensor. Case histories will be presented that illustrate how sensor data has been applied to: 1. identify opportunities to increase production; 2. identify wellbore damage following a workover; 3. demonstrate the importance of fluid properties on ESP design and well production. This paper presents the case history data and subsequent well analysis using the gradient traverse plot technique.1

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

1

The economics related to the cost of a downhole sensor will be considered in relation to the benefit that can be derived from the use of the sensor. the only variable once the pump had been installed was wellhead pressure. Philosophy of Measurement The primary reason for running a downhole sensor is to get an accurate real-time measurement of an ESP’s operating parameters. This paper will discuss the evolution of ESP monitoring and why our industry still uses electrical parameters to monitor ESPs. Consider a car travelling from town A to town B. In order to determine the drawdown of the pump in the wellbore. when running an ESP direct on line (i. were unsuccessful.Most ESP analysis. a police speed camera can be used to determine the speed of the vehicle (instantaneous velocity). The next major landmark in the evolution of ESP monitoring and control was the development of downhole sensors. troubleshooting and control systems are based on the use of electrical parameters to predict ESP and well performance.e. The use of directly measured pressures and temperatures and their benefits for control of the ESP system and prevention of premature system failure will be highlighted. or using a sophisticated onboard computer we can calculate the velocity of the vehicle based on the fuel consumption of the vehicle. Fluid shots are a valuable tool in the absence of any other technology but can be inaccurate due to effects such as foamy crude or completion configuration.e. A discussion of the philosophy of measurement will be undertaken and related to the benefit of using measured pressures to diagnose performance of the ESP produced well. The reality is that none of these methods are required because we have a simple device called a speedometer. Supposing we wish to know the velocity of the car. as with most new technologies.History The evolution of monitoring in relation to ESPs is such that in domestic land operation in the USA. fluid shots were taken to determine the fluid level. let’s consider an analogy for how measurements can be taken and the relative value of the type of measurement. a liner top. i. there are a number of ways this can be determined: if we know the distance from A to B we can calculate the velocity based on the time to cover the distance (equivalent to average velocity). which gives us a real-time indication of velocity at any point in time. The challenges to producing a sensor that could operate in 2 . The next step in the evolution of ESP technology was the variable speed drive (VSD): this device gives operators an additional method by which to control ESP operation. (Figure 2 shows a graph of measured bottom hole pressure versus time for a fluid shot and downhole sensor2). Initial attempts to apply downhole sensor technology. These systems are still set up to trip on overload and underload settings. The main advantage of the VSD is that it allows the operator to change the speed of the ESP to account for uncertainty in productivity index of the well or changing well conditions. Before we consider measurement of ESP operating parameters. The principle here is if you want to know something that can be measured directly then measure it! ESP Monitoring & Control . As ESP control systems evolved it became possible to protect the ESP by causing a pump shutdown based on underload and overload current settings – indicative of an adverse operating condition. The challenge to the operator was to design a pump and get maximum production without creating a pump-off situation. no variable speed drive). Well modelling techniques will then be discussed in relation to the ESP-produced well and the relative merits of considering the well as a hydraulic system.

discharge pressure. Knowledge of these values is required to 3 . The latest development in respect of performing downhole measurements around an ESP hinges on the application of fibre optic technology. Using electrical parameters to analyse ESP performance is analogous to the calculation of velocity based on fuel consumption in the example of how to measure a car’s velocity. system vibration and electrical integrity of the system. communication method (up the ESP power cable or separate line) and power quality. Through the use of ESP operating parameters such as discharge pressure (Pd). Sensors now exist that can measure intake pressure. Using existing technology this could be easily achieved. simulated or measured inaccurately. Current (no pun intended!) ESP analysis or monitoring is still based on electrical parameters (amps). very few sensors are used for more than obtaining an accurate pump intake pressure (Pi). have been re-run as many as five times.Today Initial attempts to develop sensors focused on measuring one pressure and one temperature. Of the two percent of ESPs with downhole sensors installed. based on the measured parameters (pressures and temperatures). If the pump intake and discharge pressures are not known and instead guessed. when an abnormal operating condition was experienced. As soon as one operator started using the measured ESP parameters to initiate pump shutdowns.compelling evidence for the value of ESP monitoring using downhole sensors! Production Optimisation Figure 4 shows a typical pressure response in a well with an ESP installed. based on measured known data. This fact is borne out by the revelation that the majority of control systems for ESPs are still set up to control on amps. Table 1 provides a summary of the types of monitoring that may be performed in relation to an ESP completion. downhole flowrate. ESP Monitoring and Control . intake temperature (Ti). As an industry we have not fully adapted to perform ESP diagnosis and analysis based on directly measured parameters. these parameters are not used to best advantage. The benefit of using downhole sensor parameters to protect the ESP has been proven. usually at the pump intake. we have developed reliable downhole monitoring systems that routinely outlive the ESP system – some systems. thereby increasing production. See figure3 for an example of an ESP failure which could have been prevented had the sensor parameters been used. it changes the whole pressure response within the wellbore. motor temperature (Tm) and vibration (Vib) it is also possible to understand the well and ESP as a system.conjunction with an ESP were downhole temperature. motor winding temperature. Systems that have downhole sensors installed are set up without any form of protection. discharge temperature. The reality is that even when the most sophisticated downhole sensors are used to measure ESP operating parameters. Such understanding leads to better system design and a continuous improvement process. intake temperature. pump runlife in the field doubled! Another operator was able to demonstrate a value of $25MM in terms of prevented workovers and increased production for an associated sensor purchase cost of $2MM . having outlived the ESP several times. over time. However. as an industry. In reality very few operators use this parameter to control the ESP and maintain a constant pump intake pressure (Pi).

4 . Having obtained the measurements. infer downhole flowrate. Commercial software currently exists that can perform analysis based on ESP pressure response in the wellbore. diagnose ESP performance and optimise production. Table 2 provides a summary of the information that can be gleaned using two measured pressures. we can directly control the ESP. having accurately validated the model. The best way to improve our application of ESPs is to measure ESP performance (speedometer!) using a downhole sensor. we can extrapolate it to interpret changing wellbore conditions. The benefit of this approach is that we consider the ESP-produced well as a hydraulic system and shift the focus from the ESP to the producing well – where the barrels (hence $) come from. The reality is a better method exists. When ESP discharge and intake pressures are known and used in conjunction with the ESP performance curve they can be used to validate or determine a number of useful operating conditions such as: validate fluid properties.ensure that we understand the ESP operating conditions. in validating the fluid properties for the produced fluids. If we measure Pi and Pd we know the exact pressure response in the wellbore and can therefore consider the wellbore as a hydraulic system. After all. frequency. understand and model the well from a hydraulic standpoint (pressure and depth). based on the measured information. the basis of continuous improvement processes is to measure what you do and try to implement improvements. To benefit from the data that can be obtained from downhole sensors we need to change the way our industry looks at design. Such software tends to be better for analysis and troubleshooting of ESP produced wells than the programs used by ESP manufacturers. bottomhole flowing pressure or pump dP. and calculate bottomhole flowing pressure. our challenge is to progress to considering ESPproduced wells as hydraulic systems. This technique works after a fashion and was necessary when it was the only tool available. optimisation and troubleshooting of ESP systems. Today you will find that the majority of ESP company personnel still talk about static and dynamic fluid levels and total dynamic head rather than static reservoir pressure. If we consider the ESP to be the cause of a pressure change in the wellbore and then analyse the well from a hydraulic standpoint. This involves directly measuring the performance of the ESP in terms of pressure. If we want to analyse a naturally flowing well we use well test data. with a cross representing the operating point of the system. Neither of these parameters is a direct measurement of well performance! If we consider the traditional approach to ESP design and well analysis. When we use an ESP in a well we tend to stick the pump in the wellbore and immediately start to consider the well response in terms of head and amps. Electrical parameters are then used to calculate how much work the motor is doing and therefore how much head the pump is producing. From a production standpoint the most important parameters are the pressures across the ESP: after all the function of the ESP is to add energy and cause a pressure change in the wellbore to allow the well to flow at a higher rate. pressure information from a flowing gradient survey and a nodal analysis software package. the wellbore pressure response (tubing flow regime) is converted into feet of head. Our methodology is to validate our fluid property assumptions by using our software to match a predicted pressure to a measured pressure and then. plot pressure across the pump (dP) vs. The pressure and flowrate information provide known measured data points to validate our software model. namely that the pump is optimally sized and that production is optimised. ESP Monitoring and Control – The Way Ahead As operators and ESP related service companies. we can consider the well using the same technique as we would for a free flowing well. As an industry we tend to understand a naturally flowing well in terms of pressure and depth. The well pressure response is then plotted on a flow versus head curve for the particular ESP. The important point of this course of action is that we.

observing the measured Pd and setting the trip level below this value.e. by using the relationship: dP (psi)= Head (ft) x s. The rationale as to whether a pump trip is used in preference to an alarm will be a function of location. it is often set up to maintain a constant Pi rather than a constant RPM – why should PCPs be different from ESPs in this respect? In addition to maximising well production. Applying such control systems using appropriate parameters to control provides a method to prevent “automatically” a pump from being operated in a condition that could result in equipment failure. These values would be programmed into the surface control system so that an alarm would trigger if pump dP increased above 1552 psi.433 (psi/ft) A minimum and maximum dP of 1552 and 805 psi is calculated in accordance with the efficiency range of the pump. a minimum and maximum pump dP corresponding to the upthrust and downthrust range on the ESP can be set to ensure that the pump is operated in range. it is possible to protect the ESP using surface control systems. through the use of sensor data. Consideration of figure 5 will illustrate this concept by demonstrating a pump operating ‘in range’: the minimum and maximum operating points correspond to a head of 3774 ft and 1957ft at the operating frequency. whereas on an offshore platform an alarm may be the preferred approach. changes in surface pressure (wellhead) and can be used to prevent a pump being deadheaded or operated in a low flow scenario. For a given pump frequency and with a known density of produced fluids. In this case the surface control system would be configured to trigger an alarm at 200 psi intake pressure and to trip the pump if the intake pressure reduced further to 175 psi. Pump Discharge Pressure (Pd) will immediately respond to changes in specific gravity of the produced fluid (watercut or gas). It is interesting to note that when an ESPCP system is run with a downhole sensor. operating philosophy and the availability of personnel to respond to an alarm scenario. To facilitate this the surface control system has to be configured to cause an alarm or shut down (trip) the pump when such a condition is detected. The following provides a summary of the key parameters that can be measured using a downhole sensor. The produced fluids in this case have average specific gravity (s. Pi may be controlled at above 200 psi in a well where gas breakout becomes excessive and causes pump operating problems below this value.) of 0. Pump Pressure Differential (dP) can be used to ensure that the ESP is run within range. to maintain a constant bottomhole pressure above a pressure that would cause excessive sand production or just to maintain a constant intake pressure – amps merely correspond to the work of the motor and frequency to the speed of the motor. The value can also be determined practically in the field by performing a shut-in test. The setting of the trip/alarm should be based on a calculated maximum value for Pd during normal operating conditions or the value can be set at normal operating Pd plus a margin (for example 50 psi).g. a pump trip could also be set if pump dP 5 .g. Knowledge of both pressures gives an exact knowledge of the work done by the pump at any moment in time and is of particular use in complex ESP situations. such as high viscosity fluids or gassy wells.From a control standpoint switching to control on intake pressure makes more sense than controlling on frequency or amp load: after all intake pressure can be controlled.95. For example on an isolated land application. x 0. where no one is available to respond to an alarm. i. with the associated control philosophy for each: Pump Intake Pressure (Pi) should be used to prevent pump-off or to prevent the well from being drawn down below a given pressure (bubble point or a minimum bottomhole flowing pressure). For example. in relation to the bubble point. it would be more sensible to trip the pump.

(Note: this takes no account of the rig cost. an input card is usually required on the VSD to allow the pump to be controlled real-time using parameters measured by the downhole sensor. Vibration (Vib) is an indirect measurement of ESP performance since. motor temperature is almost always likely to respond first. change in wellhead pressure (by surface choke closure). Motor Temperature (Tm) can be motor winding temperature or motor oil temperature. The trip/alarm should be set to activate at approx 20 deg C above normal operating temperature. onset or increase in solids (sand/scale) production and tracking pump wear. replacement ESP cost nor deferred production cost of a failed ESP).g. as the winding temperature always increases more rapidly in response to ESP problems. it is important to understand why the pump tripped. wear). Where possible it is preferable to monitor motor winding temperature. Control of the ESP using measured parameters in combination with a change in approach to consider the ESP-produced well as a hydraulic system can provide the operator with longer runlife. If the surface control system displays an alarm or the pump trips. Generally vibration would only be set up as an alarm function. Prior to restarting a pump the effort should be taken to examine the logged sensor data to determine the cause of the shut down. like amps.000 . It is thus difficult to interpret an exact.g. an indication that the pump is moving more into a low flow or potentially damaging downthrust condition. Pump intake temperature (Ti) acts as a back-up to motor temperature and would be set to trip/alarm at the same value as the motor temperature reading. increase in well watercut and indication of emulsions. To use such parameters effectively to control and protect the ESP. sand. increased production and valuable information for design of future systems – a simple method to provide continuous improvement for ESPs. what some may judge to be a high cost! Consideration of table 3 shows that for a production rate of 1000 bopd at an oil price of $10/bbl a sensor can pay for itself in between 2 and 8 days. Many premature pump failures could be avoided if the time were taken to understand why a trip or alarm occurred. However.g.000. absolute value of vibration – rather the trend of vibration is important and can indicate a range of problem conditions or change in normal operating conditions such as: • • • • • • change in frequency (pump speed) and operation around resonant frequencies. Economics The decision not to run a downhole sensor with an ESP inevitably arises from the cost! A reliable downhole sensor can cost anything between $20. change of pump/motor temperatures caused by severe upthrust/downthrust operation. start of gas locking. This simple step can have a significant effect on ESP runlife.continued to increase. electrical (e. it includes mechanical (e. If used to control the ESP the downhole sensor provides opportunity to prevent failure of the ESP. Other trips can also be set on current leakage or flow. which can prolong life of the 6 . gas. frequency) and hydraulic (e. viscosity) components3.$80. Additionally a backspin relay can be used to prevent re-start of the pump following a shutdown while fluid is still draining through the pump. Changing intake temperature can also be an indicator of change in well flowrate.

Case History 1 . In addition to the benefits of increased production from the wells. per the prediction. Some sensors had been run in the field but had proven to be unreliable.system.Opportunity to upsize the ESP This example is illustrative of a field that had been produced for several years using ESPs. determine the inflow characteristics of the well and predict production rates using a larger ESP. Wellbore damage was believed to be the cause of loss of productivity. such as temperature or pressure outwith the normal envelope of the pump. A calculation of inflow characteristics indicated a PI of 1. The well is now producing at 12265 bfpd. All Phoenix field engineers are trained in the use of such software and are expected to perform an analysis during well start-up or on a regular basis to ensure optimum use of the data from the downhole sensor. albeit at a lower flowrate for the expected productivity of the well. A prediction indicated that the well could be produced with a larger ESP. Figure 7 shows the results on an analysis performed on the same well after it had been worked over to increase the pump size. to produce an additional 3000 bfpd. a production increase of 2830 bfpd. The gradient traverse plots. The following case histories have been selected because they illustrate examples of opportunities for using the data from the downhole sensor to increase production. prevent a pump-off situation and shutdown the pump in the case of an operating condition. Note that in this case the well is being produced at higher wellhead pressure than used for the prediction. was produced using a simplistic excel based nodal analysis program. reducing the bottom hole flowing pressure. Using information from a downhole sensor measuring two pressures. analysed and optimised on the basis of electrical parameters and fluid shots rather than reliable sensor data. As such. The well has relatively high water cut and therefore is insensitive to the bubble point of the crude and gas at the pump intake. By using a sensor to measure intake and discharge pressure it was possible to analyse the ESP performance. much lower than expected for this well. The operator of the field believed that the reservoir should be capable of supporting higher production rates. A series of workovers was implemented to increase ESP size in the field. it was possible to confirm that the pump was operating correctly for the number of stages and operating frequency. presented as part of the analysis. the value of the sensor is increased further.07 stb/d. most of the ESPs were designed. If the wellhead pressure were lowered the well would be capable of producing the additional 3000bfpd. Figure 6 shows the results of the analysis and indicates that the ESP is operating in ‘upthrust’ while producing at a rate of 9435 bfpd. If the downhole sensor data is also used to analyse the ESP system and optimise production. An acid 7 . Following a workover to replace the ESP the well was producing at 1900 stb/d. Case Histories The following case histories are all based on analysis of data that was obtained from a downhole sensor. the downhole sensor is used to control the pump. the operator and the ESP manufacturer suspected a pump problem. Case History 2 – Identification of production interval damage An ESP in the well in question had run for three years at a rate of approximately 6000 BFPD before the pump failed. Calculations using such software can also form the basis for setting up of control and protection systems on the ESP.

Firstly the well can be free flowed. in that they have demonstrated an ability to increase production. It can be observed that while the pump is running.which relates directly to well production and improved ESP reliability. flowrate and tubing size. See figure 12. The previous examples have been simplistic. Secondly. an additional 1000 stbl/d could be achieved. using a larger pump and larger tubing the well can produce an additional 2150 bfpd. Considering the producing well in this manner identifies opportunities to increase production. Downhole sensor data provides an immediate direct accurate measurement of ESP performance (analogous to the speedometer in your car). In this scenario the well is free flowing but a pressure drop of 54 psi occurs across the ESP. Conclusions Monitoring of ESPs using downhole sensor data provides an opportunity to diagnose ESP performance from a hydraulic standpoint . produced using an ESP as a hydraulic system rather than just an electrical system.job was recommended to remove the damage and restore production to the 6000 bfpd that had been achieved previously. Analysis shows that a production rate of 5750 bfpd is being achieved through 3 ½” production tubing with a frictional pressure drop of 274psi. The well is producing at a rate of 5750 stbl/d. Consideration of the well. Flowrate is estimated to be 2280 bfpd. Figure 9 shows operating point in relation to the pump curve. Reconsidering the scenario with the pump running. This example is more complicated and illustrates the importance of understanding well fluid properties to size the ESP and also identifies the opportunity for increased production from this well as a free flowing well or one with a larger ESP and larger tubing. However. A few hours later the trend plot shows that the pump has shut down. due to the pressure drop of fluid flowing through the ESP (figure 10). based on well inflow capability: a traditional approach of just looking at the ESP would be unlikely to identify such opportunities for production increase. Case History 3 – The effect of friction on pump sizing. can further the application of ESP technology. This case history illustrates multiple opportunities for production increase. This example illustrates the importance of considering the well and ESP as a hydraulic system. 8 . a pump dP of approx 450 psi is created. provided we look beyond what is happening in the ESP: consider the well from a hydraulic standpoint and consider the well’s productivity. Reliance purely on electrical parameters for the interpretation and diagnosis of ESP performance is an impediment to the progress of the application of ESPs. A predictive analysis performed using a larger ESP and a larger tubing size (4 ½” instead of 3 ½”) demonstrated that a production increase of 2150 bfpd could be achieved. a ‘happy pump’ with stable electrical parameters operating in the middle of its operating curve. it is worth considering the well from a hydraulic standpoint. Consideration of figure 8 shows a trend plot of downhole sensor parameters. bypassing the pump to gain an additional 1000 bfpd. the pump is operating in range and all parameters are within a normal operating environment. if a means of removing the pressure drop through the pump could be achieved using an auto flow sub (figure 11) or a sliding sleeve. For a well with a PI of 33 stbl/day/psi this represents a ‘large’ loss in production.

. Cudmore.R. Lubbock February 2000. to understand and interpret well performance. J. 2. based on parameters directly measured using a downhole sensor. in addition to using electrical parameters. A. References 1. Williams. Applications of Real-Time Well Monitoring Systems presented at Southwestern conference. 3. “Demsytifying ESPs: A technique to make your ESP talk to you” presented at 6th European Electric Submersible Pump Round Table Feb 15-16 of 2000.. Conn.. A. “Vibration: How can we use it to prolong runlife?” SPE Electric Submersible Pump Workshop Houston.. Moffat..J. Texas April 25-27 2001. The cost of a downhole sensor in relation to the opportunities for increased production. The application and reliability of ESP technology can be improved if the ESP manufacturers adopt the ‘continuous improvement process’ of using measured pressure data. T. Williams. T.ESP runlife can be improved if surface control systems are set-up to control the ESP. prevention of an ESP failure or deferred production in relation to the sensor cost is minimal. A.. 9 .J. Baillie.

2500 Bottomhole Pressure From acoustic fluid shots 2000 1500 1000 500 Actual Bottomhole Pressure 0 Jun/1 Jun/25 Jul/20 Error Aug/13 Sep/7 Figure 2 – Actual well data showing discrepancies between true bottomhole pressure and calculated bottomhole pressure from acoustic fluid shots.Tables & Figures Figure 1 – Representation of a continuous improvement process. 10 .

Level of Monitoring Electrical parameters Fluid levels monitored What is measured ESP controlled diagnosed and operated purely on electrical parameters Occasional sonic logs taken to determine intake pressure Accurate intake pressure known realtime. Complete toolkit to perform analysis and diagnosis of well and pump performance. potential for analysis based on incorrect data. motor temperature. Ti. Pd. Benefit Lowest equipment cost. Potential for control on Pi but rarely done. Tm. Most Value Basic sensor (Pi and Ti) Advanced sensor (Pi. This pump could have been shutdown using intake pressure. 11 Temp (Deg F) / Current Leakage (mA x 1000) / Vib (g x 25) . system vibration. Accurate determination of pump P. Least added value Intake pressure measurement inaccurate. Vib) Table 1 – Levels of monitoring. Point at which the pump should have been tripped. discharge pressure or motor temperature parameters. 3500 240 3000 Motor Oil Temp Intake Temp 190 2500 140 2000 Pressure (psia) Discharge Pressure 1500 90 Intake Pressure 1000 Vibration 40 500 0 19:12 20:24 21:36 22:48 00:00 01:12 02:24 -10 03:36 Figure 3 – A preventable ESP failure.

12 . frequency.000 Res.000 6.000 Figure 4 – A typical pressure response in an ESP produced well.000 12. number stages • Measure viscosity and emulsion effects • Fluid specific gravity at the pump intake • % free gas at the pump intake • Obtain operating point for pump curve • Calculate bottomhole Pwf • Obtain PI or Pr Across the pump Below the pump Table 2 – Summary of calculated / derived parameters that can be obtained from the gradient traverse plot.000 8.0 From inflow Measured data 2. Above the pump • Validate PVT • Watercut • Fluid specific gravity at pump discharge • Tubing GOR • Measure friction effect • Validate Q.000 PRES 4.000 0 1.000 2.000 Pressure (psig) 3.000 10. pressure True Vertical Depth (ft TVD) 4.

Point 4.500 3.000 5.000 Total head (feet) Head (50 Hz) Head (60 Hz) Head (70 Hz) Head (w / w ear) Head at op.000 0 0 2.000 15.500 4.000 $80.00 7.000 1.000 $50.000 2. freq.000 $60.7.000 Pressure (psig) 1. time to payout based on a 1000 bopd and a price of $10/bbl.000 4. Point 2.000 1.000 $30.500 PRES 5.000 16.00 6.000 6.00 4.000 0 0 5. pressure 12. Sensor Purchase Cost $20. 13 .00 Table 3 – Economics of sensor cost vs.000 $70.000 Average pump flowrate (rb/day) Figure 6 – An ESP running in upthrust producing approximately 9435 bfpd.00 5.000 10.000 $40.000 Days to Payout 2.000 6.000 0 500 1.000 18.00 8. Range (min/max) Op.000 6.000 True Vertical Depth (ft TVD) 8.000 10.000 10.000 3.000 2.500 From inflow Measured data Res.000 12. 0 500 1.000 Total head (feet) Head (50 Hz) Head (60 Hz) Head (70 Hz) Head (w/ CFs) Head at op.000 Figure 5 – An ESP pump curve showing the efficiency range of the pump in relation to the operating point.000 4.000 8.00 3.000 4.000 14.000 Average pum p flow rate (rb/day) 20. Range (min/max) Op.500 2.000 3. freq.000 2.

pressure 12.000 1.500 0 0 5.000 10. The arrows on the plot represent points where the well was analysed.000 20.000 30.500 Pressure (psig) 2.000 40. 3200 400 Discharge pressure 3100 350 3000 Motor oil temperature Pressures (psia) 300 Temperatures (deg F) 2900 250 Intake temperature 2800 200 2700 Intake pressure 150 2600 30/01/01 00:00 100 01/02/01 00:00 03/02/01 00:00 05/02/01 00:00 07/02/01 00:00 09/02/01 00:00 11/02/01 00:00 Figure 8 – Example showing a well being produced using an ESP.000 Average pump flowrate (rb/day) 35. Point 2. Range (min/max) Op.500 3. The well continues to produce naturally. a pressure drop across the ESP can be observed.000 1. 14 .000 Total head (feet) Head (50 Hz) Head (60 Hz) Head (70 Hz) Head (w/ CFs) Head at op.000 15.000 4.000 Figure 7 – The same well as previous example with a larger ESP producing approximately 12265 bfpd.500 4.000 25.000 6.500 From inflow Measured data Res.000 10.000 0 500 1.000 2.000 2.000 True Vertical Depth (ft TVD) 8.0 500 1.500 PRES 5. freq.000 4. the ESP is then switched off.000 2.000 3.

500 2.000 Figure 10 – Analysis showing the well producing naturally.000 12.000 Pressure (psig) PRES 3.000 500 7.000 2.000 Average pump flowrate (rb/day) 10.000 5.000 1.000 1.000 2.000 6.500 0 0 2. 15 .000 4. freq. pressure 3.000 1. Point 3.500 PRES 3.000 0 1.000 Pressure (psig) 2.000 Figure 9 – Analysis showing the ESP running normally.0 From inflow Measured data Res. This pressure drop accounts for a loss in production of 1000 bfpd.000 6.000 7.000 3.000 4. The well is producing 5750 bfpd. Range (min/max) Op.500 4.000 3.000 6.500 True Vertical Depth (ft TVD) 2. pressure 1. 0 From inflow Measured data Res.000 0 500 1.000 1.000 4. A pressure drop of 54psi is observed across the shutdown ESP.000 5.000 2.000 True Vertical Depth (ft TVD) 2.000 Total head (feet) Head (50 Hz) Head (60 Hz) Head (70 Hz) Head (w/ CFs) Head at op.000 8.

Point 3.000 10. 16 . The predicted production rate is 7900 bfpd.000 500 6.000 6.500 2.000 Average pump flowrate (rb/day) 12.500 PRES 3.000 0 500 1.000 1.500 1.000 1.000 True Vertical Depth (ft TVD) 2.000 2.000 1.000 Pressure (psig) 2.000 5.000 Figure 12 – Prediction showing the effect of a larger tubing diameter and larger ESP.000 14. freq.000 Total head (feet) Head (50 Hz) Head (60 Hz) Head (70 Hz) Head (w/ CFs) Head at op.000 7.000 8.500 0 0 2.000 3. 0 From inflow Measured data Res.Figure 11 – An auto flow sub. Range (min/max) Op.500 4. which can be used above the ESP to eliminate pressure drop through ESP when the well is free flowing. pressure 2.000 4.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful