Tracking of Downhole ESP Reliability – Status of Industry

Adoption of ISO 14224 Terminology and Concepts

International ISO Standardization Seminar for

the Reliability Technology and Cost Area
NEN - Vlinderweg 6 - 2623 AX Delft
29th March 2017

Francisco Alhanati
John Sheldon

C-FER Technologies
 Outline

• ESP-RIFTS JIP Overview

– Objectives
– Approach

• Incorporation of ISO 14224 Terminology and Concepts

– Failure Nomenclature Standard
– Minimum Data Set (MDS) Overview
– KPIs for Benchmarking

• Industry Adoption
– Status and Common Challenges

March 2017 ISO Standardization Seminar - Delft NL 2

 ESP-RIFTS JIP Objectives

• ESP-RIFTS JIP:
– ESP Reliability Information and Failure Tracking System (RIFTS) JIP

• Ultimate goal is to help operators reduce the failure frequency

of their ESP systems
– Therefore maximizing production and reducing workover costs

• Objectives include:
– Understand the factors that affect ESP Run-Life
– Determine attainable Run-Life targets for different applications
– Identify ways to improve ESP Run-life across Participant’s operations
– Find ways to increase the inherent reliability of the equipment

March 2017 ISO Standardization Seminar - Delft NL 3

 ESP-RIFTS JIP Approach

March 2017 ISO Standardization Seminar - Delft NL 4

 C-FER Role

C-FER manages the

JIP as directed by the
Participants, which
includes:
• Assisting with data
collection (tools and
standards)
• Conducting technical
investigations
• Sharing the
knowledge gained

March 2017 ISO Standardization Seminar - Delft NL 5

 Failure Nomenclature Standard

• The following key terms were adopted from ISO 14224

– Failure: loss of ability to perform as required
– Item: subject being considered
• can be an individual part or component
• good compatibility with ISO 14224, Table A.112
– Failure Mode: manner in which failure occurs
• as a subset of “Reason for Pull”
• associated with the symptoms of the loss of functionality
• poor compatibility with ISO 14224, Table B.11
– Failure Mechanism: process that leads to a failure
• physical, chemical
– Failure Cause: set of circumstances that leads to failure
• can originate during design, manufacture, installation or operation of the
ESP System

March 2017 ISO Standardization Seminar - Delft NL 6

 ISO 14224
ESP System Boundary

March 2017 ISO Standardization Seminar - Delft NL 7

 ESP Failure Nomenclature Standard
ESP System Boundary

March 2017 ISO Standardization Seminar - Delft NL 8

 Data Set

• JIP Participants strive to collect data for a Minimum Data Set

(MDS) of 40 parameters in the following groups:
– Field and Well Data
– Reservoir and Fluids Data
– Runtime and Failure Data
– Production Data
– Equipment Data

• Discussions have also taken place on detailed ESP equipment

“trim” parameters that may be important to capture
– May vary depending on the application

March 2017 ISO Standardization Seminar - Delft NL 9

 Motor “Trim” Parameters
Parameter Library
Motor Vendor Vendor Table

Motor Series Free text

Motor Type / Model Controlled based on vendor nomenclature

Serial Number Free text

Radial Bearing Material Conductive / Non-Conductive

Nameplate Motor Horsepower Free text

Nameplate Motor Voltage Free text

Nameplate Motor Current Free text

Shaft Power Rating Standard / High Strength / Ultra High Strength

March 2017 ISO Standardization Seminar - Delft NL 10

 Data Set

• A few parameters listed in ISO 14224, Table A.113 as “high” priority

have a high degree of completeness in the project database:
– Well Identification Number, ESP Application (Onshore, Offshore/Topsides,
Offshore/Subsea), Fluid Corrosiveness (CO2 and H2S content), Fluid
Handled (Oil API, Water Cut, GOR)
• However, the large majority of the parameters associated with
equipment specifications/trim in Table A.113 have a very low
degree of completeness
– Not very good compatibility with “trim” parameters considered important
by JIP Participants?
– Several difficulties in collecting this detailed data, e.g.:
• Pothead Thermal Cycling Performance
• Motor Winding Temperature Rise
• SCS Number and Severity of Pressure Cycles
March 2017 ISO Standardization Seminar - Delft NL 11
 KPIs for Benchmarking

• Mean Time To Failure and Failure Rate used as the main KPIs
– Estimates as per ISO 14224, Annex C (items C3, C5)
– Also concepts from ISO 12489
– JIP uses actual Operating Time, not Up Time, whenever possible
• as defined in ISO 14224, Table 4

March 2017 ISO Standardization Seminar - Delft NL 12

 Analysis Tools

• Project data tracking

and analysis
software tool assists
Participants with
tracking, qualifying
and analyzing data
– Also C-FER with
processing the data
and uploading to the
overall project
database

March 2017 ISO Standardization Seminar - Delft NL 13

 Benchmarking Report

• C-FER generates an ESP

Benchmarking Report that
compares equipment
reliability around the world
for six different classes of
applications

March 2017 ISO Standardization Seminar - Delft NL 14

 Industry Adoption

• Many companies have adopted the standard terms,

definitions to track their data
• Many have also adopted the recommended KPIs for
benchmarking, as well as for:
– evaluating improvement over time
– forecasting workover frequencies, and
– deciding what actions to take to try and improve the economics

• Unfortunately, in some cases companies have struggled to

bring these in-line with their own internal language or
terminologies, and traditional ways to evaluate performance

March 2017 ISO Standardization Seminar - Delft NL 15

 Common Challenges
System Failure
• An ESP system is considered to have failed when
it has lost its ability to perform as required
– Regardless of what caused the failure

• A company indicated that they consider the

system to have not failed when a liner failure
occurred first - “it wasn’t the system’s fault it
failed”
• C-FER worked with the company representatives
to convince them that the system failure should
still be tracked
– Failure Statistics could still be segregated by cause
for analysis

• C-FER developed a flow chart to assist operators

make consistent decisions
March 2017 ISO Standardization Seminar - Delft NL 16
 Common Challenges
Failure Mechanism/Cause
• Participants collect three main pieces of failure information:
– Failed Item (Component/Part): “What Failed?”
– Failure Mechanism: “How did it Fail?”
– Failure Cause: “Why did it Fail?”
• Unfortunately, failure mechanisms are still frequently used to describe
why the system failed
– “Material degradation as a result of high temperatures, corrosion and metal
embrittlement as a result of fluid exposure are examples of common failure causes
for ESPs.” – SPE 184169
– “Listed below are a list of common failures broken out into three different classes,
based on the root cause. Those classes are: mechanical, chemical and thermal
failures.” – SPE 185129
• C-FER continues to work with industry to encourage people to use the
proper terminology
– As per ISO 14224 and the ESP-RIFTS JIP Failure Nomenclature Standard

March 2017 ISO Standardization Seminar - Delft NL 17

 Common Misuses
MTTF vs MTBF vs Avg RT of Failed

• Unfortunately, there is still confusion between “MTTF” and

“MTBF” and “Average Runtime of Failed”
– ISO 12489: MTBF = MTTF + MTTRes
– “The main criterion defining ESP performance … is MTBF, which is
calculated as average run days for all ESPs that already failed.”
– SPE 166891
• C-FER continues to work with industry to educate people on
the meaning of certain terms and for what purposes some
KPIs are appropriate (or not…)
– Skoczylas, P., Alhanati, F., Sheldon, J., and Trevisan, F. 2015. Use of
Run-Life Measures in Estimating Artificial Lift System Reliability. Paper
presented at the SPE Gulf Coast Section Electric Submersible Pump
Workshop, The Woodlands, Texas, 22-24 April.
March 2017 ISO Standardization Seminar - Delft NL 18
 Common Misuses
Confidence in MTTF
• People still often note that the estimated MTTF value is much higher than
their experience would indicate:
– “It is not clear how MTTF is relevant to the operation economics”
– “MTTF often appears unrealistically high compared to our perception for typical
ESP Run-Life in our fields”
– “How can I tell my management that we have five-year run-life when my systems
don’t seem to run longer than two years?”

• These people will then rely on other run-life measures, in particular:

– Average runtime of failed systems
– Average runtime of running systems
– Average runtime of all systems (running and pulled)

• C-FER continues to work with industry to show that these are not good
predictors of failures or workovers in subsequent years
– With some limited success…
March 2017 ISO Standardization Seminar - Delft NL 19
 Common Misuses
Run-Life Measures Example

March 2017 ISO Standardization Seminar - Delft NL 20

 Summary

• In general, C-FER has observed increased adoption of the terminology,

concepts, and recommendations in ISO 14224, ISO 12489 and ISO 15551-1
– ISO 15551-1 - Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries - Drilling and Completion
Equipment - Part 1: Electric Submersible Pump Systems for Artificial Lift
• C-FER continues to encourage operators to use terminology and concepts
in these standards
– Including help interpret some areas that may not be easily understood
• As with all efforts related to industry standardization, further
dissemination of these standards continue to be required
• Further revisions of ISO 14224 may be warranted, to adapt to current
practice in the industry
– e.g. Table A.113 (equipment specific data); Table B.11 (Failure Modes)
• Recommendations seem to be missing regarding what time to use in MTTF
and Failure Rate estimates
– Up Time versus Operating Time
March 2017 ISO Standardization Seminar - Delft NL 21
 Questions

March 2017 ISO Standardization Seminar - Delft NL 22