Society of Petroleum Engineers

SPE 25571

An Alternative Method of Installing ESP's

C.E. Robison and D.C. Cox, Otis Engineering Corp.
SPE Members

Copyright 1993, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Middle East Oil Technical Conference & EXhibition held in Bahrain, 3-6 April 1993.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Commillee following review of information contained in an abstract submilled by the author(s). Contents of the paper,
as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are sUbject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Commillees of the Society
of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment
of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., Telex, 163245 SPEUT.

ABSTRACT 90's with a revised twin-cable concept and a single-cable

Electric Submersible pumps (ESP's) traditionally have
been installed on threaded pipe using workover rigs.
More recently, however, three alternative methods for
deploying ESP's have been presented. Two of these
utilize a cable system and have been successfully
demonstrated in the field. The third, overlooked until
now, uses coiled tubing. Coiled tubing technology has
continued to provide state-of-the art diversification in
many areas of well-servicing technology, and the use of
coiled tubing for ESP installations is a logical extension of
these enhancements.
This paper contrasts coiled tubing ESP installation
methods with cable-deployed methods.
INTRODUCTION
Alternative methods of installing ESP's have been
investigated since the 1970's when a twin cable concept
was first field tested. During that installation, a number
of operational difficulties were identified, and the
deployment technique lay dormant until the mid 1980's.
By then, advancements in cable design made a single-
cable configuration possible, and a lab trial and live well
installation were completed before the end of the 80's. 1
Additional live well tests were conducted in the early
References and illustrations at end of paper.
configuration, and several papers were written to present
the test results. 2 ,3 The authors concluded that the basic
cable concept was sound but that refinement of the
cable was still needed. Following the presentation of
these papers, work was begun on deployment of ESP's
with coiled tubing.
During the same timeframe, coiled tubing servIcing
techniques were also expanding, and the introduction of
larger, higher-strength coiled tubing enabled many
operators to consider coiled tubing for completion of their
wells. Deploying ESP's on coiled tubing is merely an
extension of this concept, and operators have been
following the developments in this technology with
interest, hoping to gain an economic advantage in ESP
servicing.
BACKGROUND
Today, most ESP installations use jointed pipe to deploy
the pump into the well. The jointed pipe is used as the
flow conduit, and the power cable is attached to the
outside of the tubing. The installation procedures to
prevent damage to the power cable during deployment
are arduous. At every joint connection, the power cable
becomes more susceptible to physical damage, and at
the same time, each connection introduces a site for
corrosion to occur inside the tubing. Typical running
speeds are 30-40 ft/min for this type of installation.

455
2 AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD OF INSTALLING ESP'S
Because some platforms are not ideally arranged for rig
operations, a jack-up vessel may be required to support
the rig and the ancillary equipment. The cost and
additional mobilization time associated with this
procedure can make the ESP economics less than
desirable. In many cases, the time required to mobilize
the rig may cause the ESP to remain idle for a
considerable period of time, and the loss of revenue
associated with this downtime may overshadow all other
costs.
The single-cable-deployed pumping system (COPS) has
demonstrated its effectiveness as a viable option to the
rig-deployed system. The purpose-built cable is designed
to withstand the rigors of the downhole environment as
well as the loads imposed during installation and retrieval
of the ESP. This method of deployment is the most
straightforward of the current systems, offering the
following advantages: (1) There is no need to attach the
cable to a base tubing; thus, installation speeds can be in
the range of 100-1 20 ft/min; (2) the flow area provides
sufficient capacity to consider rates as high as 30,000
B/O; (3) the surface equipment offers proven
technology, being a modified coiled tubing injector; and
(4) the system can be easily transported because of its
modular design.
The concept of the coiled-tubing-deployed pumping
system (CTOPS) for ESP's is now being looked upon as
a viable, though untried, option. Enhancements in
continuous tubing technology and the increase in sizes of
tubing offered have given this option even more
credibility. At this time, 3-1 /2-inch-00 continuous tubing
is available in lengths of up to 5,000 ft. In many
completions, this tubing could provide sufficient flow
area to allow production rates of 8 - 10,000 B/O. Annular
flow completions are available to accommodate even
higher flow rates. Coiled tubing shares many of the
benefits of the jointed tubing such as: the capability to
push the ESP into the well, a feature particularly useful
in highly-deviated wells and/or when the dogleg severity
poses a problem; the capability to provide a flowpath for
circulating fluids into the well if any cleanout is desired;
and the capability to immerse the power cable in a benign
completion fluid rather than in a corrosive well effluent.
Additionally, with the CTOPS, the power cable is
attached to the 00 of the coiled tubing, and because
there are no protuberances on the 00 of the tUbing,
there is less likelihood of the cable becoming damaged
during installation or retrieval; installations are faster
because there are no tubing joints; and the surface
456
SPE 25571
equipment is much more compact and modular than that
of a conventional rig.
DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEMS
The surface equipment for a cable and/or coiled tubing
deployed ESP completion will include the following:
• Injector
• Tubing reel
• Operator's console
• BOP stack
• Crane (capable of lifting the spool of cable and the
reel with coiled tubing)
• Cable reel
• Scaffolding to create a work window.
• Diesel hydraulic power unit
Since the COPS cable uses the tubing storage drum in
this installation, one less drum is required than is shown
in Figure 1. This equipment is almost identical to the
standard package needed for normal coiled-tubing
operations.
A purpose-built connector attaches the ESP to the coiled
tubing. The connector, as shown in Figure 2, features
metal-to-metal sealing and will withstand the torque
produced by the ESP motor. Connector make-up does
not require any preparation of the tubing other than
cutting to length and cleaning of the 00. This connector
is relatively new and is considered a critical component
of the ESP system. The availability of this device
illustrates the attention this technology has attracted.
The downhole equipment for tubing flow, coiled-tubing-
deployed system is identical to the equipment used for a
conventional ESP installation. The power cable is
supported along the 00 of the coiled tubing by protective
clamps or metal bands that grip and centralize the coiled
tubing in the well. These devices are already in use in
jointed pipe installations and need only slight
modifications to enable them to work satisfactorily with
coiled tubing. Because there are no connection
protuberances on the coiled tubing 00, there is less
possibility of damage to the power cable during the
deployment. Additionally, because the coiled tubing is
continuous, it does not provide a site for corrosion to
take place as in the case of threaded pipe.
The downhole equipment for the COPS or the annular-
flow CTOPS differs slightly in that the pump is located
below the motor. The ESP suppliers refer to this
SPE 25571 CLARK E. ROBISON AND DON C. COX
arrangement as an inverted pump assembly. Terminating
the cable into the motor eliminates the motor flat, which
is common to all ESP installations and thereby increases
the reliability of the ESP assembly. In field tests, a
landing nipple was used in the production tubing to
locate the ESP. A locking-module discharge head was
added to the ESP assembly between the pump and the
motor to facilitate location of the ESP assembly in the
wellbore. For field tests, the size of the production
tubing was 7-inch, which is required with 540 series
ESP's. The annular flow COPS is optimized for very high
flow conditions.
COMPLETION EQUIPMENT
The completion equipment for a COPS or CTOPS
installation will vary, depending upon whether the
production is flowed up the coiled tubing or up the
annulus created by the production tubing and cable or the
coiled tubing. In an annular flow (AF) system, an
inverted pump is the preferred ESP configuration, and
this requires some means of isolating the inlet of the
pump from the outlet. In a tubing flow (TF) system, a
conventional ESP is preferred, and much of the existing
ESP completion equipment is readily available.
The live well test of the COPS was an annular-flow
system, and a landing nipple in the production tubing
string (7-inch) was employed to locate the pump
assembly. The nipple served as a receptacle for the
locking module discharge head, which formed a seal
between the inlet and outlet of the pump, and provided
a flowpath for the production. The physical limitations
imposed by all of these functions resulted in the 7-inch
tubing string selection. There is a potential for this
mandrel to be reduced slightly, but in most COPS
installations, a production tubing string of at least 6-5/8-
inch will be a requirement.
In a tubing-flow installation (only CTOPS), the completion
equipment is very similar to a conventional ESP. A
packer is typically required when the gas/oil ratio exceeds
the limits imposed by the pump supplier, and a downhole
separator is employed; or when a regulatory requirement
must be met. In either case, proven completion
equipment is available in a wide range of tubing/casing
sizes and weights.
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
Cable-deployed ESP's are the fastest to install and
retrieve of any of the alternative methods. The only
457
3
restriction to the deployment speed in a cable-deployed
ESP is the need to allow pressure equalization of the
pump assembly, which may result in an upper limit
constraint of 120 ft/min. With coiled tubing installations,
the attachment and removal of the protective cable
clamps or metal bands slows the operations.
The coiled tubing system can be installed in wells with
much higher deviation than the cable system. Coiled
tubing provides sufficient stiffness to push the ESP past
doglegs and where excessive friction of the ESP
assembly might present difficulties in reaching the
desired depth. In contrast, the cable-deployed system
must rely on the weight of the ESP assembly to pull the
system into the well, which typically results in an upper
limit of 60 degrees. Most pump suppliers have set a
limitation on dogleg severity of 12 degrees per 100 ft. 4
Any build angle greater than this could result in
permanent deformation of the pump assembly, which
would render it inoperative.
Considerable effort has been expended to define a
calculation routine to assist in predicting the operational
limits of the systems (Figure 4).5 The mathematical
model used to prepare this graph is presented in the
appendix of this paper. With this "cookbook" calculation,
it is possible to predetermine the size of the pump and
tubing, determine whether annular or tubing flow is
preferable and predict the maximum setting depth
allowed. This tool is invaluable in facilitating the initial
planning for an ESP installation.
SUMMARY
The use of a purpose-built power cable for installation of
ESP's has been presented as a tested and proven viable
option to deployment of ESP's with a conventional rig.
The use of coiled tubing to deploy ESP's has been
presented as a logical extension of a proven technology,
lacking only actual usage as proof of its viability. Both
deployment techniques offer unique advantages to the
operator and may afford a significant cost improvement
over conventional rig-deployed ESP's.
The more significant features of both installations are
compared in Table 1. A simplified calculation routine has
been devised to predict the operational characteristics of
the coiled- tubing deployment system. In addition, a well
completion system that will satisfy many installations has
also been presented. A live well installation appears to
be the only part of the coiled tubing picture that is
missing.
4 AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD OF INSTALLING ESP'S SPE 25571

REFERENCES
F = WT'll:x1jJ sin(90
180
-..t)
2
1. Bayh. Russell I.. III and Neuroth, David H.: "Enhanced
Production from Cable Deployed Electrical Pumping
Systems," paper SPE 19707 presented at the 1989
SPE Annual Technical Conference, San Antonio,
+~
IW':7tx1jJ
~80 COS(9o~1)-2[Wp+W~D]

Texas, October 8-11. x [~cos(90-1jJ) +sin(90-1jJ)]sin(1)1

+ [Wp+W~D] [~cos(90-.) +sin(90-1jJ] +WrH

2. Roberts, Sid and Willard, Lee: "Field Testing of Cable
Suspended ESP Systems." paper presented at 1991
SPE ESP Workshop, Houston, Texas, April 29 - • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • (1)
May 1.

3. Robison, Clark E. and Cox, Don C.: "Alternative
Methods for Installing ESPs," paper OTC 7035
presented at the 24th Annual Offshore Technology
Conference, Houston, Texas, May 4-7, 1992.
4. Gallup, Robert: "ESP's in Horizontal Wells, paper
II
presented at the 1990 Society of Petroleum
Engineers Electrical Submersible Pump Workshop,
Houston, Texas, April 30-May 2, 1990.
5. Robison, Clark E. and Cox, Don C.: "Cookbook
Calculations For Choosing an Alternative Method of
Installing an Electric Submersible Pump (ESP), paper
II
then the pump and tubing in that portion of the well
profile will no longer move by gravity alone but must be
pushed down and along the wellbore. For such an angle
and coefficient of friction, there exists a length where the
frictional drag causes the tubing to buckle, first
sinusoidally and then helically. A generally held opinion is
that helical buckling will result in a locked condition
wherein the tubing can no longer be forced to move
through the well. Actual field experience in coiled-tubing
well logging operations indicates that the tubing usually
can be forced to considerable additional depths without
damage.

presented at the 1992 Society of Petroleum Nevertheless, the onset of helical buckling is an important
Engineers Electrical Submersible Pump Workshop, criterion in setting maximum running depths in highly
Houston, Texas, April 29 - May 1. deviated wells. Equation 2 is based on work done by
Chen, Lin, & Cheatham on tubular buckling in horizontal
APPENDIX wells. 6 The equation calculates the length at which
helical buckling will occur for coiled tubing with an ESP
The following equations can be used to determine the attached.
required forces to deploy and retrieve the ESP, the LD = [(A x B) - C] 0.0833
running depths of the installation, and the production
flow capacities accommodated in coiled tubing ESP
completions. A = 1
~cos(90 - 1jJ) - sin(90 - 1jJ)
Each coiled tubing size has an allowable limit on the force . (2)
that can be pulled on the tubing; therefore, the force E(D 2 + ~)
B
needed to retrieve an ESP is the usual factor that limits PT(C - D)
the maximum running depth of an installation. Equation
1 is a readily-used, single equation that calculates this
force. It can be derived from the five equations illustrated
in Figure 3 by allowing for only one division of the total
build angle til. Although the results of Equation 1 are not
as accurate as the process described in Figure 3, the Flow Capacities
results are within 8% or less.
After using Equations 1 and 2 to calculate the running
In highly deviated wells, when the tangent of the depths and the required forces, then the flow capacities
wellbore angle exceeds the sliding coefficient of friction that the coiled tubing can accommodate must be
present between the ESP, the tubing, and the wellbore, determined. Production flow rates are often determined

458
SPE 25571 CLARK E. ROBISON AND DON C. COX 5

by the well productivity index (PIl, reservoir conservation 6. Electric power cable weight. .. 1.8 Ibm/ft
considerations, and the ESP selection. However, even 7. Electric power cable diameter .... 1.4 in.
with a well of limitless PI and an ESP of infinite capacity 8. Casing 7 in - 29 Ibm/ft
but limited discharge pressure, a maximum production 9. Specific gravity of produced fluid.. 1.016
rate exists that cannot be exceeded due to fluid friction. 10. Viscosity of produced fluid .. 1 centipoise
Equation 3, a surprisingly simple equation, which
11. Coefficient of friction 0.4
incorporates an explicit friction factor suggested by
12. Build radius 5.73°/100ft
Cheremisinoff, 7 gives reliable results for turbulent flow of
Newtonian fluids in commercial pipe and tubing.
Of course, different criteria will produce different
numbers; however, Figure 4 shows the capabilities and
Q = 12,822.86(l)2.83(AP)0.S43 ..... (3)
relationships for a family of typical completions.
P~467 v 0.087 LT
Sample calculations for the well profile of Figure 4 with
75° deviation and 2-3/8 x 0.198-inch wall coiled tubing
illustrate the use of these "cookbook" equations in Table
For laminar flow (Reynolds numbers less than 3,000),
No.1. Maximum depth is based on limiting the pulling
Equation 4 can be used to calculate tubing flow rates.
force on the tubing to 75% of yield.

Q = 125,497.71(ltAP (4) Nomenclature

vLT
C = 10 of casing or well, in.
0 = 00 of coiled tubing, in.
For reference, the Reynolds number can be found by
Equation 5. E = Modulus of elasticity of coiled tubing
2
material, Ib/in.
R = 1.4758Qp (5)
N
Iv F = Force, Ib
H = Length of vertical section of deviated well, ft
I = 10 of coiled tubing, in.
Sometimes the flow capacity of the coiled tubing will be
inadequate. In such instances the well can be completed
Lo = Length of straight angled section of deviated
to have the production flow through the annulus between well, ft
the tubing 00 and casing 10. B This can result in a LT = Total length of coiled tubing in deviated well,
manifold increase in production rates. Equations 3,4, and
5 can be used to calculate annular flows by replacing ft
four times the annular hydraulic radius (cross sectional loP = Pressure differential, Ib/in. 2
flow area divided by the wetted perimeter) for "I" in each
Q - Fluid flow rate, BFPD
equation.
Wp - Weight of ESP, lb
Figure 4 shows the results of many calculations for six WT - Weight of coiled tubing and power cable,
sizes of coiled tubing and a cable deployed system with
rectangular cable configuration as described in reference lbm/ft
1. The graph shows maximum depths and flow rates r - Radius of build section of deviated well, ft
based on the following criteria:
v - Fluid viscosity, centipoise
1. Well draw down. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 100% PF - Density of Fluid, lb/ff
2. Tensile force on tubing as percentage of
PT - Density of tubing material, Ib/in. 3
yield 75%
3. Weight of ESP . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4,0001b if; - Angle from vertical in deviated well, degrees
4. Discharge pressure of ESP 3,748 psi p. - Coefficient of friction
5. Wellhead flowing pressure 200 psi

459
 Table 1.
SAMPLE CALCULATIONS FOR THE WELL PROFILE OF FIGURE 4

F = 72,700 lb
WT = 4.709 + 1.8
= 6.509 lb/ft
r = 1,000 ft
= 75°
'"
Wp = 4,000 lb
p. = 0.4
H =500
Substituting into equation 1 and back-solving for 1.0:

72700 = 6.509.(1,000)(75) sin/go

, 180 "\
_1!)
2

+ 0.41
6 50911
• ~180ooo)(75) cos(9O -1i) -2(4,000 + 6.509Lol[O.4cos(9O - 75) + s1n(90 - 75)]SI~~)1
+ (4,000 + 6.509Lol(O.4cos(90 - 75) + 31n(9O -75] + 6.509(500)

L D = 11,652

Total vertical depth would be:

1VD = 500 +1,000(sin75) +11 ,652(oos75)

= 4,48~
Using the 5 equations from Figure 3, the force needed to retrieve the pump from this depth in this well is 78,866
pounds, which is within 7.8% of the results of this "less accurate" method.

Since the deviation from vertical is 75°, this is a "highly deviated" well. The tangent of the angle from horizontal is
0.268, which is less than the coefficient of friction of 0.4. Helical buckling may, therefore, be the limiting factor on
depth. Using equation 2,

2
1 3Oxl(jl(2.375 + 1.96g2} 4(4,000) )0.0833
L
D
= [ 0.4<:os(90 - 75) - sln(90 - 75) 0.284(6.184 - 2.375) 'It (0.284)(2.3752 -1.96g2)

= 9,767ft

Total vertical depth would be

1VD = 5OO+1,OOO(sin75)+9,767(cos75)
= 3,994ft

These numbers are less than the amounts for Equation 1; therefore, maximum depth of deployment may be limited by
helical buckling when running in rather than tubing tension when pulling out.

460
 SP£25511

Table 1. (Continued)

Flow rates for tubing flow from the 4,482 TVD can be calculated from Equation 3. The pressure available to create flow
is the pump discharge pressure minus the wellhead pressure and static head pressure. The total length of tubing is

, - = 500 + 1,0007'(75) + 11 652

-r 180'
= 13,461ft

and

I1P = 3,748 - 200 - 0.433(1.016)(4,482)

= 1,576psi

Substituting,

= 12,822.86(1.969)2.83( 1,576 )0.543

Q 63.4°.46710.087 13,461
= 3,568BFPD

A check of Reynolds Number,

R = 1.4758(3,568)(63.4)
N 1.969(1)
= 169,549

(well into the turbulent range)

For annular flow, four times the hydraulic radius is 3.077 inches.

Q = 12,822.86(3.077t83 ( 1,576 )0.543

63.4°.46710.087 13,461
,. 11,545BFPD

Reynolds Number is

R = 1.4758(11,545)(63.4)
N 3.077(1)
= 351,062

(also well into the turbulent range)

461
 TUBING STORAGE DRUM
/ ' (POWERED)
END SUB

SLIP SEGMENT

II~ COILED TUBING INJECTOR

MIDDLE SUB

APPROX. 2" O.D. COILED TUBING

ELECTRIC POWER CABLE

STORAGE DRUM
(POWERED) SEAL SUB

~ METAL-TO-METAL SEAL

BACK-UP RING

IIi+-- WINDOW FOR PUMP STAGING

AND ACCESS TO TUBING
O-RING

~1I( WELL HEAD

PIPE THREAD SUB

BANDS THAT ATTACH AND HOLD ELECTRIC
POWER CABLE TO O.D. OF TUBING

CONNECTOR FOR ATTACHMENT OF

TUBING TO THE PUMP
Fig. 2
.... ELECTRIC SUBMERSIBLE PUMP Cross Section of a
Coiled Tubing Connector

Fig. 1
The Installation of a Tubing
Deployed ESP
 SPE25571
the drag force of the pump & installation string moving
up the inclined section of the wellbore is: F = [Wp -+- WtL ] [lLcosa + sina] _
o p
The normal force between the string & wellbore
through the radius section is: nmm_mm Kn = ~t;~a cos [a + a (N-.5)]- 2F(N_1) sin ~ n m • • __ n n n m n m m n n n 2
If K is (+) the string is in contact with the lower side of
the wellbore. If K is (-) the string is in contact with
the upper side of the wellbore.
The increase in force needed to move upward in the
radius section is: If K is positive (+) n __ Fn = ~t;~a sin [a + a (N-.5)] + ILK(N) + F(N.1) . m _ n n n n n m n n n m 3

,~~ If K is negative (-) _n_ Fn =180 sin ~:: (N-.5)] + IILKI + F(N-1) m m m . __ m m m n m n m _ m 4

1
The drag forces through the radius section are summed for as many divisions (N) as desired for accuracy.
H (5 divisions are usually adequate.)

The "rtaoe to"e " ..dod '0 ",,';eve the pump ;"stalla,;O" ;" F" = WH + ~F" .5

Wrrrra cos [a + 3a]

180 2

K2 = Wflrra cos [3a]

a +- - 2F ' -a
1 sin
180 2 4

F2 = Wrrrra
180 sm. [a + 3a] + IL K2 + F1 If K'IS (+)
2"
If K is (-)

Pump Weight, Ib
String Weight, Iblft
Radius, ft
IL Coefficient of Friction
K Normal Force, Ib
K1 = Wrrrra cos [aa
+ -] - 2Fa sin
. -a
180 2 4

F1 = Wrrrra sin
180
[a +~]2 + ILK1 + Fa If K1 is (+)

F = Wflrra + ILK + F I I If K1 is (-)

1 180sin [a+~] 1 a

Fig. 3 Tension Forces in Deviated Wells

463
 Horizontal Reach (tt)
a 1K 2K 3K 4K 5K 6K 7K 8K 9K 10K 11 K 12K 13K 14K 15K 16K 17K 18K

1K

2K

3K

4K

5K
Coiled Tubing
Depth Limits Due

.j:>.
0)
.j:>.
-E'>c 6K

7K
to Helical Buckling
Vs Angle of Deviation

‫ן‬-

~7~ • TVD Limit for 3,748 psi.

8K
50° ESP Discharge Pressure

This graph is based on the following conditions

9K
1 Well Draw Down ---------------------------------100%
2 Tensile Force on Tubing as % of Yield ------ 75%
10K Depth Limits (at 75% Tensile Yield)
3 Weight of ESP --------------------------------- 4,0001b
Vs Angle of Deviation 4 Discharge Pressure of ESP -------------- 3,748 psi
5 Wellhead Flowing Pressure ---------------- 200 psi
11 K 6 Electric Power Cable Weight ----------------1.8Ib/ft

12K
!~ngle of De"ation in
10 Degrees from Vertical
7 Electric Power Cable Diameter -------------- 1.4 in
8 Casing -------------------------------------------- 7" 291b
9 Specific Gravity of Produced Fluid ---------- 1.016
10 Viscosity of Produced Fluid ---------- 1 Centipoise
11 Coefficient of Friction ------------------------------- 0.4
13K...l.. 0° 12 Build Radius ------------------------------- 5.73°/1 OOft

Fig. 4
Maxiumum Depths and Flow Rates for a Family of ESP Completions