ESP-Reliability Information and Failure Tracking System

ESP-RIFTS Joint Industry Project
- An Overview –

March 2009

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

Slide 1

ESP-RIFTS JIP

The Vision…

March 2009

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

Slide 2

Total Workover Cost vs. ESP Run Life (Onshore)
$40 6%

Total Cost
$35

Servicing Cost
5%

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

True Workover Costs ($millions/ year)

$20

3%

$15 2% $10 1% $5

$0 0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960

0%

Average Operating Period (days)

March 2009

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

Slide 3

Operators want to…
Improve ESP Run-Life in existing applications Improve the chances of success in new applications Extend range and reliability of current ESP technology Get a better understanding of the factors affecting ESP Run-Life

March 2009

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

Slide 4

The Vision …
Access a large set of hard ESP reliability data
To avoid educated guesses

Ensure this reliability data is consistent
To avoid misunderstanding

Incorporate reliability engineering analysis tools
To analyze data appropriately

Benchmark results against other operators
To determine attainable performance targets

Learn from others experience
To find out what you can do to achieve better performance

March 2009

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

Slide 5

which will permit sharing of ESP run-life and failure information among a number of operators. by transferring knowledge and experience across the industry” March 2009 ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009 Slide 6 .” “… ultimate goals .Reliability Information and Failure Tracking System (ESP-RIFTS)...ESP-RIFTS JIP was formed in 1999 . [they] are two fold: (1) to accelerate the learning curve associated with new ESP applications.. ESP Operators joined efforts to pursue.. and (2) to increase average ESP run-life and operating range. “… development of an industry wide Electric Submersible Pump (ESP) .

Implementation Strategy… March 2009 ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009 Slide 7 .

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

Standard terminology (ESP Failure Nomenclature Standard) Consistency in classifying. Procedure to ensure certain standards of data “quality” 5. Internet based system Participants select records of interest Examine the contents of such records Conduct a variety of analyses with them 7. recording and storing information 2. reliability functions and distributions Confidence level calculations 8. Set of reliability tools to support data analysis Various run-life measures. Database structure to store the data collected 6. Common set of parameters (General Data Set) Tracked by all Participants in the project 3. Data Input Sheet (DIS) To assist in data collection. maintenance and upload 4. Model to predict run-life under new conditions (“What if”) Calibrated with database information ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009 March 2009 Slide 9 .System Features ESP-RIFTS 1.

Nomenclature for components. Leading to consistency in failure analysis performed with data gathered by different operating and service companies Conforms to (as much as possible): 1) International Standard ISO/DIS 14224 2) API RP 11S1 In general: Broad definitions and failure attribute classifications were borrowed from the ISO/DIS 14224*. parts and teardown observations were borrowed from the API RP 11S1 *ISO 14224: Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries: Collection and Exchange of Reliability and Maintenance Data for Equipment ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009 March 2009 Slide 10 . recording and storing ESP failure information.ESP-RIFTS Failure Nomenclature Standard Standard terminology for classifying.

recording and storing information 2. maintenance and upload 4. reliability functions and distributions Confidence level calculations 8.System Features ESP-RIFTS 1. Database structure to store the data collected 6. Common set of parameters (General and Minimum Data Sets) Tracked by all Participants in the project 3. Procedure to ensure certain standards of data “quality” 5. Data Input Sheet (DIS) To assist in data collection. Model to predict run-life under new conditions (“What if”) Calibrated with database information ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009 March 2009 Slide 11 . Set of reliability tools to support data analysis Various run-life measures. Internet based system Participants select records of interest Examine the contents of such records Conduct a variety of analyses with them 7. Standard terminology (ESP Failure Nomenclature Standard) Consistency in classifying.

ESP-RIFTS : MinimumData Set Field Information Fluid Information Well Information (1) Minimum Data Set List of ~ 37 key parameters Subset of the General Data Set Developed with the input of the ESP-RIFTS Steering Committee Attempted to be consistent with other recommended parameter lists SPE ESP Workshop Parameter Field Name Field Type Oil Density Bottomhole Temperature (BHT) Well Name Reservoir(s) Type Casing Size Runtime Data (dates) Production Period No. Date Started(2) Date Failed / Shutdown ESP System Failed? Primary Failed Item Primary Failure Descriptor Failure Information Surface Equipment Data Downhole Equipment Data Control Panel Type Pump Vendor Pump Type/Model Number of Pump Stages Seal Vendor Seal Type/Model Motor Vendor Motor Type/Model Motor Horsepower Pump Intake /Gas Separator Vendor Pump Intake /Gas Separator Type Cable Vendor Cable Model/Size Pump Seating Depth (PSD) Operating and Production Data Total Flow Rate Water Cut (or oil and water rates) Pump Intake Pressure (PIP) Gas-Oil Ratio (GOR) or gas rate Sand Production (Concentration) Scale (None/Light/Moderate/Severe) Asphaltene (None/ Light/Moderate/Severe) CO2 (Concentration) H2S (Concentration) Emulsion (None/Light/Moderate/Severe) Average data for period or more frequent e.. The Minimum information that an ESP “Failure” record must have to be considered “Complete” (as per the ESPRIFTS Qualification Standard) Number M inimum Data Set Parameters = 37 March 2009 ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009 Slide 12 . monthly or number of intervals (must provide start and end dates of these intervals) during which operating conditions were reasonalby constant.g.

Database structure to store the data collected 6. maintenance and upload 4. Common set of parameters (General Data Set) Tracked by all Participants in the project 3. Data Input Sheet (DIS) To assist in data collection. Procedure to ensure certain standards of data “quality” 5. Standard terminology (PCP Failure Nomenclature Standard) Consistency in classifying. Model to predict run-life under new conditions (“What if”) Calibrated with database information Developed for ESP-RIFTS March 2009 ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009 Slide 13 . recording and storing information 2. Internet based system Participants select records of interest Examine the contents of such records Conduct a variety of analyses with them 7. reliability functions and distributions Confidence level calculations 8.System Features ESP-RIFTS 1. Set of reliability tools to support data analysis Various run-life measures.

Data Processing and Qualification Overview Participants Participants send new data & data updates to C-FER Data Processing FTP C-FER processes and enters data into the Development Server Feedback from C-FER to the Participants: • Apparent problems with the data • Processed data sent back to Participants in ESP-RIFTS or PCP-RIFTS Data Input Sheet Data Qualification Data Collection Participants conduct analyses via the web Data Analysis Production Server Processed data and New Web pages are uploaded to the Development Production Server Server Web March 2009 ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009 Slide 14 .

as per the ISO Standard: Complete – in relation to a specification Compatible and Consistent – with a standard set of definitions and formats. with other information pertaining to the record.Data Qualification Objectives Our confidence in any analysis will always be strongly dependant on our perception of the quality of the data collected Goal of data qualification process is to yield “quality data”. with the principles of PCP technology and with basic laws of engineering/science Accurate – truly representative of the PCP installation that it describes March 2009 ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009 Slide 15 .

Data Input Sheet (DIS) Microsoft® Access based database file with structure similar to ESP-RIFTS master database Developed to assist in data collection and qualification Field level data capture and tracking March 2009 ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009 Slide 16 .

Portuguese. British and North Sea units Ability to work in different languages Currently English.DIS Benefits to the Participants Ability to check and improve their own records before sending the data to C-FER DIS can generate automated reports on level of completeness and inconsistencies Ability to analyze the data shortly after providing data to C-FER DIS allows for quicker data processing. Russian and French Ability to perform basic Analysis on your own data Run-Life Calculations (e.g. Reliability Functions (e. MTTF. Spanish.g. Survival Probability). Failure Rates by ESP Component) and Reporting of Results March 2009 ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009 Slide 17 . qualification and uploading by C-FER Ability to work in different unit systems SI. Average Runtime).

DIS Run-Life Calculations Select either chart or table output format Results can be saved and printed March 2009 ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009 Slide 18 .

Well MORE options have been added as well (e.) Survival Probability and Hazard Function shown March 2009 ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009 Slide 19 . Field. Motor Series. Solids?.DIS Reliability Functions Grouping Variables: • • Company. Cable AWG Size. Division. etc.g.

Failed Item – Main Component 2. Failed Item – Subcomponent 3. as in the Website Note: Field names have been “masked” for confidentiality March 2009 ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009 Slide 20 . Vendor. Division. Failure Cause: General Grouping Variables: • • Company.g. 4.DIS Failure Rates by ESP Component Output Options Include: 1. 3. Field. Model #). Well MORE options will be added soon (e. 2. Field A Field B Field C Field D Field E Field F Field G Service-Life of Failed Number of Failed ESPs Average Runtime of Failed Failure Rate Outputs Segregated by: 1.

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

Data Processing Locations of Fields in ESP-RIFTS Note: Company IDs have been “masked” for confidentiality BP Chevron ConocoPhillips EnCana ExxonMobil ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009 Kuwait Oil Company Nexen PDVSA Petrobras Repsol YPF Saudi Aramco Shell Shell PDO Statoil TNK-BP TOTAL March 2009 Slide 22 .

Grow of Database as of March 2009 90000 80000 70000 Number of Production Periods 60000 50000 40000 26071 30000 20000 10000 0 7/4/2000 8/2/2002 4/7/2003 10/27/2003 2/3/2004 4/8/2004 10/15/2004 11/6/2006 4/1/2007 3/1/2009 4/25/2000 March 2009 79.754 ESP Installs as of March 2009 •17 companies •88 divisions •494 fields •25454 wells 60237 79754 70548 60813 17898 7590 9366 15272 12606 13897 1673 11/20/2000 4/25/2001 1854 3940 11/28/2001 4/22/2002 ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009 10/11/2002 12/5/2002 12/9/2004 4/14/2005 11/17/2005 5/19/2006 11/14/2007 6/15/2008 12/3/2008 Date Slide 23 .

Model to predict run-life under new conditions (“What if”) Calibrated with database information Developed for ESP-RIFTS March 2009 ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009 Slide 24 . Internet based system Participants select records of interest Examine the contents of such records Conduct a variety of analyses with them 7. maintenance and upload 4. reliability functions and distributions Confidence level calculations 8. Data Input Sheet (DIS) To assist in data collection. Common set of parameters (General Data Set) Tracked by all Participants in the project 3. Database structure to store the data collected 6. Set of reliability tools to support data analysis Various run-life measures. Standard terminology (PCP Failure Nomenclature Standard) Consistency in classifying.System Features for ESP-RIFTS 1. Procedure to ensure certain standards of data “quality” 5. recording and storing information 2.

GOR. Stop. Operator info. Pull dates. Workovers. Run time information Install. photographs. Fluid Level. etc. Start. and Reservoir data Field. Descriptor.Database Structure Five main groups of data Field. Fluid. scanned documents Comments Equipment data Motor model. bench test reports. Reservoir. Fluid. Intake Model. Motor HP. BSW. Well. Production and Operating Information Producing rates. Drilling/Completion. Cable Size. Cause Teardown/Inspection reports. Manufacturer “Catalogue” information March 2009 ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009 Slide 25 . Mode. Wellhead and Bottom Hole Pressure and Temperature Failure data Item(s).

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

Internet based system Participants select records of interest Examine the contents of such records Conduct a variety of analyses with them 7. Data Input Sheet (DIS) To assist in data collection. Procedure to ensure certain standards of data “quality” 5. Standard terminology (PCP Failure Nomenclature Standard) Consistency in classifying. Database structure to store the data collected 6. Set of reliability tools to support data analysis Various run-life measures. reliability functions and distributions Confidence level calculations 8. Model to predict run-life under new conditions (“What if”) Calibrated with database information Developed for ESP-RIFTS March 2009 ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009 Slide 27 . recording and storing information 2. maintenance and upload 4. Common set of parameters (General Data Set) Tracked by all Participants in the project 3.System Features for ESP-RIFTS 1.

Measures of Run-Life March 2009 ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009 Slide 28 .

proper analysis must consider all data Considering only the failed items will tend to underestimate the reliability of the system Therefore.Some Key Concepts Censoring For some systems. the RL is not known: Systems still running Systems pulled for reasons other than a system failure The data is said to be “censored” However. all systems must be tracked: Pulled systems Failed Not Failed Running systems March 2009 ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009 Slide 29 .

Run-Life Flow Chart Running Valid Last Date # still running Period Status # all periods Completed ESP System Failed ? Yes # failed # completed No # not failed March 2009 ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009 Slide 30 .

Reliability Functions March 2009 ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009 Slide 31 .

Survival and Hazard Curves March 2009 ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009 Slide 32 .

Component Failure Rates March 2009 ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009 Slide 33 .

Failure Rates of Cables for a Field FR of New Cable is 4 times smaller than that of Used Cable March 2009 ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009 Slide 34 .

Standard terminology (PCP Failure Nomenclature Standard) Consistency in classifying. Set of reliability tools to support data analysis Various run-life measures. Procedure to ensure certain standards of data “quality” 5. recording and storing information 2. Database structure to store the data collected 6. Model to predict run-life under new conditions (“What if”) Calibrated with database information Developed for ESP-RIFTS March 2009 ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009 Slide 35 . Common set of parameters (General Data Set) Tracked by all Participants in the project 3. reliability functions and distributions Confidence level calculations 8. maintenance and upload 4. Internet based system Participants select records of interest Examine the contents of such records Conduct a variety of analyses with them 7. Data Input Sheet (DIS) To assist in data collection.System Features for ESP-RIFTS 1.

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

) Field A Field B Field C Low R-L but above expectations March 2009 High R-L but below expectations ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009 Slide 37 Note: Field names have been “masked” for confidentiality .What-If Model (contd.

Some Analysis Examples Using Website Data and Tools March 2009 ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009 Slide 38 .

How is My Field doing? .MTTF and Average Run-Life - Based on Date Installed. MTTF shows continuous improvement Uncertainty bars on MTTF depend on number of failed systems Average Run-Life decrease in 2003-3005 is does not necessarily indicate worse performance Only indicates that more recently installed systems are “younger” ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009 March 2009 Slide 39 .

Cumulative and Moving Window metrics - Based on more recent data (i. MTTF and Average Run-Life shows larger improvement than based on all (cumulative) data Not shown (but available): Other R-L metrics used by Operators All have advantages and disadvantages Some are indicators of “age of population” and not necessarily equipment reliability March 2009 ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009 Slide 40 .How is My Field doing? .e. Moving Window of last 1200 days at each point in time).

Motors Plugged Pumps 33.Primary Failed Items and Failure Mechanisms Periods with Failures at t ≤ 90 days Primary Failed Items: Motors Cables Pumps Intakes Seals 36.0% Low Impedance Motors 4.4% 18.9% Most Severe Mechanisms: Short Circuited Motors 14.1% 11.8% 21.5% Short Circuited Cables 14.5% 14.2% All Failed Periods Primary Failed Items: Pumps Motors Intakes Cables Seals Broken Pumps Short Circuited Cable Short Circuited Motor Stuck Pumps Fractured Pumps Phase Unbal.8% 16.2% 9.0% Most Severe Mechanisms: Failure Mechanisms are different for early and all failures March 2009 ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009 Slide 41 .5% 6.How is My Field doing? . Intakes 7.1% 9.4% 2.6% 6. Motors 9.9% Broken/Fract.2% 4.5% Phase Unbal.8% 22.1% 21.5% 6.2% Plugged Pumps 7.9% Overheated Motors 4.5% 10.

Failure Rates (FRs) by ESP system component: evolution with time Note: Dashed red lines represent “eye-balled” trend. Seals and Cables show deceasing trend (improving) FR of Motors shows increasing trend FR of Pumps varies with no clear trend Pump and Motors are components currently with higher FRs March 2009 ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009 Slide 42 . FR’s of Pump Intakes.How is My Field doing? .

05 6.91 81.36 2. ..47 8.1 2.. Moderate Severe Total March 2009 (×10-6/day) 12.Failure Rates (FRs): effect of scale Moderate Severe ESP Pumps are affected by severe scaling conditions: +44% higher FR’s than for moderate scaling conditions.44 -54.92 54....79 188. ESP ESP Pump ESP Seal Shroud Intake Failure Failure Failure Rate Rate Rate (×10 (×10 (×106 6 6 /day) /day) /day) 155.97 143.2 9.57 138....6% ESP Pump Failure Rate (×106 /day) 224.47 ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009 .How is My Field doing? .6% 36. Primary Failed Item Scale? ..5% Slide 43 4..97 158.86 192.51 324. .9 .56 44.3% .6% ESP Motor Failure Rate (×106 /day) 180.05 284.07 0 159.57 9. ESP Assembly Failure Rate ESP Cable Failure Rate (×106 /day) 130.

Search data in the system [Artificial Lift Type]='ESP' AND [Production Role]='Oil Production' AND [Qualification Status]<>'Incomplete-No Dates or Failure Information' AND [Qualification Status]<>'Inconsistent Records' AND [Qualification Status]<>'Historical' AND [Pump Seating Depth MD]>'700' AND [Pump Seating Depth MD]<'1500' AND [CO2 (% by Volume)]>'50' AND [Water Cut]>'70' AND [Total Flow Rate]<='500' AND [Gas Oil Ratio (GOR)]<='300' My Field* Periods by Field Average MTTF Medium Total Rates High WC Medium Sand Medium-High API High CO2 Low GOR Low Temperature Shallow PSD One dominant vendor Onshore March 2009 Field B has a large # of “similar” records Other fields have just a few records ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009 Slide 44 Note: Company Names have been “masked” for confidentiality .How does My Field compare with “similar” fields? .

Comparison of Cumulative MTTF and Average Run-Life 1443 1318 512 507 B Field My Field MTTF is approximately 4 months lower in My Field Note: Field names have been “masked” for confidentiality March 2009 ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009 Slide 45 .

Closure March 2009 ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009 Slide 46 .

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

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

the effects of good decisions made at one point in time are only felt in the long term 3. including: Improved chances of overall economic success in new projects Because there will be less uncertainty in the expected run-life Reduced production losses in the upcoming years Because improved rig scheduling will be possible Improved overall run-life and reduced operational costs Because best practices can be implemented 2. which can span over a variety of aspects. Ability to make direct benchmark comparisons Within own Company’s operations Within the Participants' operations 4. Guidelines for negotiations between the Participant and ESP vendors (e. Business results can start to be obtained as soon as possible In terms of run-life.. Business results. as in alliance situations) Using benchmarks established with the system March 2009 ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009 Slide 49 .Benefits to New Participants Long-Term Benefits 1.g.

Fee Structure Year 2009/2010 (Phase XI) New Participant Fee US$ 48.000 Covers Core Tasks Data Processing and Qualification Data Analysis (within the limits of the System) Web Site Maintenance Project Steering Committee Meetings (Nov/Dec 2009 and Apr/May 2010) Project Management and Reporting March 2009 ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009 Slide 50 .000 (one-time) Covers Initial Development Cost Sharing New Participant Orientations (in-house training) Mapping and Input of Historical Data JIP Participation Fee US$48.

com/Workscope%20Phase%20X.com ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009 Slide 51 . deliverables. please contact: Jesús E.pdf Detailed work scope.ESP Workshop Paper “Benchmarking ESP Run Life Accounting for Application Differences” For addition information.pdf 2001 SPE . Chacín tel: e-mail: March 2009 (780) 450-8989 ext 224 f.alhanati@cfertech.esprifts.esprifts.com General Information on the ESP-RIFTS JIP Benefits to New Participants: http://www. and milestone schedule for Phase X: http://www.com/Benefits.ESP Workshop Paper “ESP Failures: Can We Talk the Same Language?” 2003 SPE .Further Documentation Available Project web site: http://www.esprifts.

Support Slides March 2009 ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009 Slide 52 .

Should the wells be produced at a flowing bottomhole pressure that is above the bubble point pressure to avoid failures associated with free gas? March 2009 ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009 Slide 53 ..g.g.. how much? What is the effect of well completion type on ESP run life? E.. Is the run life for wells equipped with VSDs the same as wells equipped with switch boxes? E. Are coiled tubing deployed systems less reliable than systems deployed on jointed tubing? If so..g. Should sand control (gravel pack) be used to prevent sand inflow (but perhaps at the cost of lower well productivity)? Would the ESP run-life be acceptable if the sand is produced? What operating practices/conditions are best? E.g.Predicting ESP Run Life for New Applications Questions in field development feasibility studies What is the expected ESP run life for the field? What are the future service rig requirements for the field? What type of equipment is best suited for a given application? E.

Early Stages of a Feasibility Study How ESP run-life affects the project economics? Offshore Platform Example 20 Wells Average oil production per well: Average intervention cost: Average equipment cost: Average workover & waiting time 1200 bopd 150 k (10 days @15k/day) 100 k 60 days Onshore Example 100 wells Average oil production per well: Average intervention cost: Average equipment cost: Average workover & waiting time: 200 bopd 20 k 50 k 7 days March 2009 ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009 Slide 54 .

Total Workover Cost vs. ESP Run Life (Offshore) $700 40% Total Cost $600 Servicing Cost 35% 30% $500 True Workover Costs ($millions/ year) 25% $400 True Workover Cost (%Revenue) 20% $300 15% $200 10% $100 5% $0 0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 0% Average Operating Period (days) March 2009 ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009 Slide 55 .

Total Workover Cost vs. ESP Run Life (Onshore) $40 6% Total Cost $35 Servicing Cost 5% $30 4% $25 True Workover Cost (%Revenue) True Workover Costs ($millions/ year) $20 3% $15 2% $10 1% $5 $0 0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 0% Average Operating Period (days) March 2009 ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009 Slide 56 .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful