11/18/2008

SPE Distinguished Lecturer Program

The SPE Distinguished Lecturer Program is funded principally

through a grant from the SPE Foundation.

The society gratefully acknowledges the companies that support

this program by allowing their professionals to participate as
lecturers.

Special thanks to the American Institute of

g Metallurgical,
Mining, g and Petroleum
Engineers (AIME) for its contribution to
the program.

Society of Petroleum Engineers

Distinguished Lecturer Program
www.spe.org/dl

Pitfalls to Avoid in Assessing

A ifi i l Lift
Artificial Lif Run-Life
R Lif Performance
P f

Francisco Alhanati
C-FER Technologies

Society of Petroleum Engineers

Distinguished Lecturer Program
www.spe.org/dl

1
 11/18/2008

Impact on Economics

• Artificial Lift Run

Run-Life
Life Performance
directly affects:
– Work over frequency
– Work over costs
– Production losses

Impact of ESP 20 Wells

average oil production per well: 1,000 bpd

Run-Life average intervention cost: 150 k US$

average workover & waiting time: 60 days
oil price: US$60/bbl

Overall Workover Costs

$250 30%

25%
$200

20%
milllions / year

$150
% revenue

15%
$100
10%

$50
5%

$0 0%
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960
Average Runtime (days)

2
 11/18/2008

AL Run-Life Performance is
important

• Key Performance Indicator (KPI)

– effects of changes in operational
conditions, equipment selection and
operational practices
– used in many alliance contracts between
operators and vendors

Assessing AL RL Performance

• Not as simple as it may sound

– Several measures used throughout the
industry
– Trends are often misleading

• Issues must be understood, so that

– Pitfalls can be avoided
– Proper RL measures can be selected

3
 11/18/2008

Run-Life and Runtime

• For many installations,

installations Run-Life
Run Life is not
known, only Runtime
– Systems that are still running
– Systems that were pulled for other reasons
than system failure

Censoring

• The data is said to be “censored”

censored
• One can only hope to obtain estimates
of average Run-Life
• Based on all the systems Runtime

4
 11/18/2008

Run-Life Estimates
• Average Runtime can be calculated for:
– All systems
y (pulled or still running)
(p g)
– Running systems only
– Pulled systems only
– Pulled and Failed systems only

• All these averages can be calculated based on

p
different exposure times
– Time-in-Hole, Total Runtime, Actual Runtime

• Over different (calendar) periods of time

– Last two years, last five years, etc.

Run-Life Estimates
• Average Runtime of pulled systems:
• Includes failure of other “systems”: tubing,
sand control
control, etc
etc.
• It is a reasonable indicator of the overall
production system reliability
• But not of the AL system reliability

• Average
g Runtime of failed systems:
y
• Also affected by failures of other “systems”
• Not a good indicator of the AL system
reliability either

5
 11/18/2008

Run-Life Estimates
• At a certain point of time, all you can
have is a statistical “best
best estimate”
estimate , or
“expected value” of average Run-Life or
Mean Time to Failure (MTTF)

Run-Life Estimates
• Average Failure Rate:
– Number of failures per well over a period of
time
• MTTF estimate:
– the inverse of the average failure rate
– ratio of the total time in operation (for all
systems pulled or still running) to the
systems,
number of failures:

MTTF =
∑T pulled + ∑ T running
# failed

6
 11/18/2008

What is a Failure?

• Failure:
– The termination of the ability
of an item to perform its
required functions

ISO 14224: Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries:

Collection and Exchange of Reliability and
Maintenance Data for Equipment

Common Pitfalls

• Early Failures versus Frequent Failures

• Improvement versus Aging
• Component Reliability and System RL
• Failure Mechanism versus Failure
Cause

7
 11/18/2008

ESP-RIFTS Data
Locations of Fields

BP Nexen Shell
Chevron PDVSA Shell PDO
ConocoPhillips Petrobras TNK-BP
EnCana Repsol YPF TOTAL
ExxonMobil Rosneft
Kuwait Oil Company Saudi Aramco

ESP-RIFTS: ESP Reliability and Failure Tracking System

Common Pitfalls

• Early Failures versus Frequent Failures

• Improvement versus Aging
• Component Reliability and System RL
• Failure Mechanism versus Failure
Cause

8
 11/18/2008

Average Runtime of Failed

What is the 900

erage Run Time (days)

800

least reliable 700

600
500

component? 400
300

Is it the gas 200

Ave
100
0

separator?
Cable Downhole Gas Motor Pump Pump Seal
Sensors Separator Intake

ESP Component

Failure Rate

Which is more 400

6 / day)
350

300

Failure Rate (x10-6

reliable?
li bl ? 250
200

The motor or
150
100
50

the cable? 0
ESP Cable Downhole
Sensors
Gas
Separator
Motor Pump Pump
Intake
Seal

ESP Component

Common Pitfalls

• Early Failures versus Frequent Failures

• Improvement versus Aging
• Component Reliability and System RL
• Failure Mechanism versus Failure
Cause

9
 11/18/2008

Is the system reliability improving?

Or are the systems just aging?
40
4.0
MTTF (3 yr Window)
Wi d )

3.5 Average Runtime of Running

3.0
Run-Life Estimate

2.5

2.0

15
1.5
R

1.0

0.5

0.0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Calendar Year

Common Pitfalls

• Early Failures versus Frequent Failures

• Improvement versus Aging
• Component Reliability and System RL
• Failure Mechanism versus Failure
Cause

10
 11/18/2008

Survival Curve

Is the equipment
100

90

80

70

60
Manufacturer A
Manufacturer B from both
S (t)

50

40

30
manufacturers
20

10

0
equally reliable?
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96

time in operation (months)

Failure Rate

400

350 Manufacturer A

Failure Rate (x10-66 / day)

300 Manufacturer B

250

200

150

100

50

0
Cable Gas Separator Motor Pump Pump Intake Seal

ESP Component

Common Pitfalls

• Early Failures versus Frequent Failures

• Improvement versus Aging
• Component Reliability and System RL
• Failure Mechanism versus Failure
Cause

11
 11/18/2008

Failure Classifications
• Reason for Pull
– Suspected system failure or any other reason
– e.g.: stimulation, re-completion
• Primary Failed Item and Descriptor
– Component (or part) in which the failure likely
initiated, and likely mechanism
– Based on observations during pull or teardown
– e.g.
g motor burn
• Failure Cause:
– The circumstances during design, manufacture or
use which have led to a failure
– e.g. improper assembly during installation

Failure Analysis Process

System Failure
- Reason for Pull defined:
e.g., No flow to surface

System Pull and Teardown

- Items and Descriptors defined:
e.g., Shorted MLE

’Failure Investigation
- Cause defined:
e.g., Installation; Improper
Assembly

12
 11/18/2008

Do I have a manufacturing (QC) problem?

Or do I have an operational problem?

Number of Failures by Failure Cause

120 Completion

100 Installation
mber of Failures

Manufacturing
80
Normal or Expected
60 Wear-and-Tear
Operation

40
Num

Other

20 Storage and
Transportation
System Design /
0 Selection
Cable Gas Motor Pump Pump Seal
Separator Intake

ESP Component

Conclusions
• There are several measures used
throughout the industry
• One needs to understand their meaning
to properly interpret the trends
• Best picture of the situation likely
requires looking at several measures
• Improvement
I t requires
i thorough
th h
investigation of the failure causes
• Be aware of the pitfalls !

13
 11/18/2008

Acknowledgement
• ESP
ESP-RIFTS
RIFTS JIP Participants:
– BP - Petrobras
– Chevron - Repsol-YPF
– ConocoPhillips - Rosneft
– EnCana - Shell
– ExxonMobil - StatoilHydro
– KOC - TNK-BP
– Nexen - Total

14