Rod Pump - An Overview - ScienceDirect Topics

8/4/2021 Rod Pump - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
Rod Pump
LRP units are available in smaller sizes with a maximum polished rod
stroke length of 144 in and a maximum load capacity of 30,000lb
[121].
From: Sucker-Rod Pumping Handbook, 2015
Related terms:
Hydraulics, Gas Lifts, Pumping System, Pumping Unit, Polished Rod, Rod String,
Submersible Pump, Sucker Rod
PRODUCTION AUTOMATION
James F. Lea, ... Mike R. Wells, in Gas Well Deliquification (Second Edition), 2008
Unique Software
Rod pump controllers contain unique software for managing pump operations. To
determine if a well is pumped off, they must collect and process at least 20 pairs of
load and position data points per second. Some units process much more data
than this. The units check for a number of specific sucker rod pumping alarms (see
the next subsection) and check for shut-down conditions. For example, if the rod
load is too high, this may indicate a stuck pump.
They check for pump-off on every pump stroke by comparing the load at some
preset position with a predefined pump-off load limit. If the load is above the limit,
implying that the load is still being carried by the traveling valve and rods, the
pump is stopped. It will remain off for a predetermined pump-off idle time and
then automatically restart.
Since most rod pump controllers communicate with the host automation system
by radio, pump cards are buffered in the unit's memory so they can be transmitted
to the host at relatively slow radio transmission speed.
Read full chapter

URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780750682800500160
Production automation
James F. LeaJr, Lynn Rowlan, in Gas Well Deliquification (Third Edition), 2019
Unique software
RPCs contain unique software for managing pump operations. To determine if a
well is “pumped off,” they must collect and process at least 20 pairs of load and
position data points per second. Some units process much more data than this.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/rod-pump 1/20
The units check for a number of specific sucker rod pumping alarms (see Section
14.5.2.5) and shutdown conditions. For example, if the rod load is too high, this
may indicate a stuck pump.
They check for pump-off on every pump stroke by comparing the load at some
preset position with a predefined “pump-off ” load limit. If the load is above the
limit, implying that the load is still being carried by the traveling valve and rods,
the pump is stopped. It will remain off for a predetermined “pump-off idle time”
and then automatically restart.
Since most RPCs communicate with the host automation system by radio, pump
cards are buffered in the unit’s memory, so they can be transmitted to the host at
relatively slow radio transmission speed.
Read full chapter

Sucker-Rod Pumping System Components and Their

Operation
Gabor Takacs PhD, in Sucker-Rod Pumping Handbook, 2015
3.7.6.2 The Linear Rod Pump

Instead of the beam-pumping unit, the Linear Rod Pump (LRP), available from
Unico, Inc [120,121], utilizes a linear actuator to move the polished rod. As shown
in Fig. 3.111, the unit has a rack-and-pinion mechanism driven by a reversible
electric motor. The motor and the gearbox are fixed to a vertical tube mounted
directly to the wellhead. Inside the tube the rack gear is raised and lowered by the
pinion (driven by the gearbox), thereby moving the polished rod fixed to the rack.
Since the motor is connected to a variable-speed drive (VSD), proper programming
of the VSD unit allows a full control of the polished rod's kinematic behavior during
the complete pumping cycle.
Figure 3.111. Schematic drawing of the Linear Rod Pump (LRP).
Programming of the VSD unit that drives the Linear Rod Pump allows the operator
to select the variation of most of the kinematic parameters of the polished rod's
movement during the pumping cycle. Polished rod velocities for long portions of
both the upstroke and the downstroke are constant and can be selected
independently of each other; acceleration/deceleration at stroke reversals is
also selectable. These features greatly decrease dynamic forces and reduce energy
requirements. The nearly instantaneous adjustment of polished rod velocity is
facilitated by the low inertia of the system.
LRP units are available in smaller sizes with a maximum polished rod stroke length
of 144 in and a maximum load capacity of 30,000 lb [121]. Their principal
advantages over beam-pumping units are [122]:
• Low investment and installation costs related to their small size and low
weight.
• Lower energy requirements than those of beam units because of the simpler
design and computer control.
• Minimum pumping speed can be as low as 1 SPM without any operational
problems; the limit for beam-pumping units is 4–5 SPM.
• Much smaller footprint and low profile.
Read full chapter

Well Dynamics
David A. Simpson P.E., in Practical Onshore Gas Field Engineering, 2017
3.5.3.5 Sucker rod pumps

Versions of the Sucker Rod Pump (SRP) technology have been used for over 6000
years. A simple chamber (the “barrel”) with a nonreturn valve on the bottom (the
“standing valve”) and a moving plunger with a nonreturn valve (the “traveling
valve”) connected to the surface with “sucker rods” make up the system. As the
plunger starts down (Fig. 3.30, left-hand image), the traveling valve is forced open
and the plunger is allowed to “swallow” the liquid that is in the barrel. As the
plunger starts back up (Fig. 3.30, right-hand image), the traveling valve is forced
closed and the standing valve is pulled open. The ball portion of the standing valve
controls the NPSH-r of the pump.
Figure 3.30. SRP.
Look at the left-hand image in Fig. 3.30 and note that the surface area exposed to
the formation below the standing valve is much smaller than the surface are
exposed to the tubing (otherwise the ball would fall through). In actual practice the
effective area exposed to the reservoir is about 43% of total area under force. This
causes the NPSH-r to open the standing valve to be about 14% higher than the
pressure in the barrel when the plunger has moved some distance upward. For a
barrel that is liquid-full, the incompressiblity of water makes this differential
insignificant since the bulk modulus of water requires dropping pressure
319,000 psi (2.2 GPa) to expand liquid water by 1%. Rather than dropping pressure
to an impossible value, the standing valve will lift. On the other hand, if there is any
gas in the barrel it must expand until the pressure in the barrel is 14% lower than
BHP. Since every pump stroke in a gas well invariably ingests some gas, this
phenomena brings most pump manufacturers to the conclusion that the NPSH-r
for SRP in gas wells is on the order of 100 ft (30.5 m) of water column.
SRP are “PD pumps.” That means that for every complete cycle (full stroke in an
SRP, a full 360-degree revolution on a PCP, etc.) the pump will displace the same
physical volume, but not necessarily the same mass of fluid. If a PD pump is
running at 100% efficiency (Fig. 3.31) there is no relationship between discharge
pressure and flow (there is a very definite relationship between discharge pressure,
mass flow rate, and power input required, but the discharge pressure and flow rate
are independent of each other). We don’t live in a world where 100% is even
possible. When you push really hard on the fluid in the pump outlet, some will leak
back through seals toward the suction. This slipped fluid is warmer than the bulk of
the fluid so it can make micro changes in density and viscosity. The actual
relationship between pump discharge pressure and volume flow rate is really quite
complex in a PD pump, the details of this complexity are very much individual-
pump specific so they don’t lend themselves to a general discussion.
Figure 3.31. PD pump volumetric efficiency.
If the traveling valve does not open on every single stroke, then the pump is said to
be “gas locked.” When the barrel is full of gas, then the descending plunger must
compress the gas in the barrel before the pressure in the barrel is high enough to
lift the traveling valve. This compression is accompanied by the “adiabatic heat of
compression” (Eq. (3.18)) which can raise the temperature of the gas high enough
to boil any water that happens to enter the pump. This kind of gas lock will
continue until enough liquid leaks between the plunger and the barrel to raise the
mass in the barrel and increase pressure high enough to open the traveling valve
and allow tubing liquid to rush in and quench the steam. At that point the pump
will work for several strokes before beginning to accumulate gas again. Most SRP
with conventional surface equipment are gas locked most of the time.
The risk of gas locking an SRP can be reduced by applying backpressure (Table 3.3)
for the same reasons discussed in Section 3.4.3. The effect can be seen with an
example. A CBM well has a conventional pump jack with the SRP set at 3000 ft
(914 m) and designed for 20 bbl/day (3180 L/day). Flowing casing pressure is
0 psig.
Table 3.3. SRP backpressure example
0 MSCF/day 1 MSCF/day
0 psig tbg 200 psig tbg 0 psig tbg 200 psig tbg
0 MSCF/day 1 MSCF/day
Pump discharge at 3000 ft 1311 psig 1511 psig 41 psig 1248 psig
dP across plunger 1280 psi 1480 psi 38 psi 1245 psi
Slippage (gal/day) 7.9 9.1 0.004 7.3
Time to break gas lock 4 hours 3.5 hours 5 days 4 hours
In this real-life example, backpressure worked to return the pump to the zero-gas
performance (which is not terribly good, but often acceptable). Downhole
techniques like oversized pump barrels (or undersized plungers), installing a rod to
trip traveling valve, tapered barrel, or downhole gas separators have had very
limited success and while frequently tried, none have received widespread
acceptance or long-term reliability.
Conventional pump jacks. The mainstay of the oil field for at least 100 years has been
the “pump jack” called at various times in various places “beam unit” or “nodding
donkey.” The pump jack stand in Fig. 3.32 is a balance between requiring small
lifting capacity for this well while having to clear the wellhead with the horse head.
Pump jacks are often run by small natural-gas fired engines (single cylinder
engines or “one lungers” are common) which are very difficult to adjust their speed
remotely, so pumping rate is fixed in a macro sense (i.e., you can change it, but it
requires a technician on site).
Figure 3.32. Conventional pump jack.
There are many online and slide-rule calculators to determine the expected flow
rate and load requirements on a pump jack, and the underlying mathematics are
reasonably complex and of questionable valve for conventional SRP in gas fields.
Data from the analysis of hundreds of dynamometer cards in pump-jack gas wells
indicate that it is rare for an SRP in gas wells to be less than 30% full of gas (Lea et
al., 2008) which makes surface readings difficult to interpret (it is hard to tell the
difference between gas in the barrel and other problems) and the computerized
translation to a downhole card (which eliminates rod stretch) quite unreliable (since
rod stretch is a function of the weight of the column of fluid and assumes no gas in
the tubing).
The walking beam on a pump jack (the part that connects the rod string to the
prime mover) translates rotational force from the prime mover to linear force
lifting and lowering the SRP plunger. The prime mover is rotating at a constant
speed, but depending on where the crank is in its travel, the pitman arm (and
therefore the walking beam and polished rod) move at a faster or slower speed.
When the crank is approaching the 3 o’clock or 9 o’clock positions, each degree of
rotation causes the pitman arm to travel a much greater distance than when the
crank is approaching the 12 o’clock or 6 o’clock positions. This results in very
inconsistent plunger velocity that is completely unrelated to the needs of the pump
or, more importantly, the reservoir. I have operated many pump jacks connected to
SRP and have had consistently poor results. When a client asks for a
recommendation on deliquification technology, nodding donkeys are not on the
list.
There have been some recent reports of electric-drive pump jacks with highly
capable VFD that can cause a pump to increase travel rate on the upstroke and
decrease travel rate on the downstroke. Even though these pumps are not able to
pause at the top of the stroke like the linear SRP (later) to facilitate pump leakage
with minimum engagement of the plunger in the barrel, they are still able to
significantly improve the performance of pump jacks.
Linear SRP. The observation that conventional pump jacks are generally a poor
choice for deliquification should not be taken to mean that SRP is not a viable
deliquification technology. In the late 1990s there was a field trial on two
pneumatic linear rod pumps (Fig. 3.33). These pumps were completely pneumatic
(with no electronic controls), operating on field gas at the very bottom of the
acceptable pressure range. At the operating pressure we had, the pumps were very
difficult to keep running reliably. One of the field techs was interested in making
the technology work and spent considerable time dialing it in and keeping ahead of
problems. The other field tech saw it as extra work and had no investment in its
success or failure. The test failed, but we did learn:
Figure 3.33. Pneumatic SRP linear driver.
• While the polished rod speed was not exactly constant (the pump paused at the
bottom and top of travel while valves repositioned and pneumatic spaces
repressurized), the speeds seemed very compatible with the operation of the
SRP.
• Too much marketable gas was vented in pump operation (in our case the pump
vented to the well-site compressor, but that is not the common configuration).
• The pump required far too much human intervention to maintain
optimization, many of these activities would have been better done by a PLC.
• The well with the optimized pump responded very well, and the pauses
(especially at the top of the stroke with minimum plunger engagement)
minimized gas locking, and possibly eliminated it.
• Success of this pump is very much dependent on the commitment of the lease
operator, and without their buy-in this particular pump (like most technology)
has to fail.
Over the last few years, several manufacturers have produced versions of linear rod
pumps with electric or hydraulic drivers (one manufacturer has a hydraulic system
with a pneumatic accumulator to recover a significant portion of the pumping
energy, the pump is expensive and the manufacturer is not featuring it in their
marketing).
As long as the system has flexibility in programming, either electric or hydraulic
drivers provide an excellent deliquification solution. At a minimum the
programming needs to:
• Allow programming a user-specified (and field changeable) pause at the top of
the stroke. This seems to be the key element to allow an SRP to operate with
zero NPSH-r. The pause at minimum engagement accelerates the exchange of
gas from inside the chamber with liquid from the tubing so that the traveling
valve will open immediately on the downstroke and (more importantly)
immediately on the upstroke. With an adequate pause at the top of the stroke
the pump should open both the standing valve and the traveling valve every
stroke.
• Allow programming up-speed and down-speed independently and from the
field.
• Allow programming a pause at the bottom of the stroke.
• Be compatible with a competent pump-off control mechanism such as
Weatherford’s Wellpilot FCT.
Linear drivers with SRP are near the top of my list of recommended devices for
deliquification using external energy.
Read full chapter

Calculation of Operational Parameters

Gabor Takacs PhD, in Sucker-Rod Pumping Handbook, 2015
4.5.3.2 Gassy production

Sucker-rod pumps are designed to pump a single-phase liquid only and usually
cannot achieve high efficiencies when free gas is present at the suction of the
pump. In addition to the effect of pump leakage, volumetric efficiency is basically
defined by the following two main negative effects of the existing gas phase; both
result in a reduced liquid volume being produced:
1. Gas occupies space within the barrel and reduces the space available for
liquids.
2. The valves of the pump do not operate the way they are supposed to.
The first problem will be discussed in more detail later; the second requires a study
of the operation of the traveling and standing valves when pumping a liquid
containing free gas. At the start of the upstroke, the dead space, i.e., the space that
exists between the standing and traveling valves at the bottom of the plunger's
stroke, contains a gas–liquid mixture that has been compressed by the plunger
during the downstroke. This compressible mixture starts to expand as the plunger
begins its upstroke, and the standing valve can open only after pressure above it
has decreased to the submergence pressure. Thus, the standing valve's opening is
delayed, and the useful plunger stroke length is decreased, compared to the case
where an incompressible liquid occupies the dead space. When the downstroke
begins, in turn, the operation of the traveling valve is impaired by the free gas.
Again, the barrel beneath the plunger contains a compressible mixture, which is at
the pump intake pressure. As the plunger descends, the traveling valve cannot
open immediately as it should, because it has the high hydrostatic pressure of the
liquid column above it and a much lower pressure below. It opens only after the
mixture has been compressed sufficiently to overcome the liquid column pressure,
and that occurs later on the downstroke. All these effects reduce the useful stroke
length of the plunger and decrease the pump's liquid production capacity.
Out of the three factors mentioned before, normally the effect of free gas in the
barrel is the decisive one that defines the pump volumetric efficiency because
pump leakage and the adverse effect of the dead space is kept at a minimum by
proper field practice [70–72]. This is why in the following the pump volumetric
efficiency is derived from an investigation of the conditions in the pump barrel.
In theory, three different situations can happen in the pump barrel when gassy
wells are produced:
1. No gas reaches into the barrel because all free gas is vented into the annulus.
2. All gas coming from the formation goes through the pump.
3. Part of the formation gas is removed by a downhole gas separator before it
gets into the pump.
These cases are illustrated for a sample well in Fig. 4.22, where efficiencies are
plotted versus the pump intake pressure, PIP, the most important parameter
governing the amount of free gas present at the pump's suction. The first case is
identical to single-phase liquid production when only dissolved gas enters the
pump; pump volumetric efficiency is found from Eq. (4.90) and is indicated in the
figure by the solid straight line labeled “All Gas Vented.” As shown, very high
efficiencies are experienced that slightly decrease with the pump intake pressure
(PIP) and illustrate the behavior of a sucker-rod pump operating under ideal
conditions.
Figure 4.22. Pump volumetric efficiency versus pump intake pressure curves for a
sample well.
If all free gas coming from the formation enters the pump, then pump volumetric
efficiency is found from the calculated volume of the phases (liquid and gas)
occupying the barrel space and can be calculated from:
(4.92)
where:
ηvol = pump volumetric efficiency, –,
Qo, Qw = oil and water volumetric rates, STB/d,
Bo, Bw = oil, water volume factors at pump intake pressure and temperature,
bbl/STB,
WOR = production water–oil ratio, –,
GLR = production gas–liquid ratio, scf/STB,
Rs = solution gas–oil ratio at pump intake pressure and temperature, scf/STB,
and
Bg = gas volume factor at pump intake pressure and temperature, cu ft/scf.
The curves labeled “All Gas Pumped” and plotted in dashed lines indicate
efficiencies calculated from the previous formula for two different production gas–
liquid ratios (GLRs). Volumetric efficiencies are very low for low PIP values when
pump submergence below the annular liquid level is small because most of the gas
phase is in free gas form. As PIP increases, e.g., by setting the pump deeper below
the annular liquid level, the efficiency rapidly increases until the bubble point
pressure is reached at point A or B for the two GLRs, respectively; lower efficiencies
belong to greater GLR values. Above the bubble points all gas is in solution and a
single-phase liquid phase is pumped; volumetric efficiency is found from Eq. (4.90).
Finally, if a gravitational gas separator (gas anchor) is used to remove part of the
free gas from the well stream before it reaches the downhole pump, then the
pump's volumetric efficiency is found from the next formula. Here the third term in
the denominator represents the volume of gas that leaves the gas separator and
enters the pump barrel; see Section 3.4.1.2.
(4.93)
where the variables not defined recently:

C = separator type coefficient, –,
PIP = pump intake pressure, psia, and
vsl = liquid superficial velocity in separator, ft/s.
Figure 4.22 illustrates the use of two different types of gas separators: No. 1 is a
packer-type and No. 2 is a poor-boy gas anchor; see the solid curves labeled
“Using Gas Separator.” Both separators can remove large volumes of gas at very
low PIPs and result in high pump volumetric efficiencies, but their performance
very rapidly deteriorates as pump intake pressure increases. At some pressures (see
points C, D and C′, D′) the effectiveness of the separators diminishes and all gas
flows through the separator into the pump; the variation of pump volumetric
efficiencies follows the “All Gas Pumped” cases. General conclusions on the use of
gas anchors are:
• Gas anchors can increase the pump volumetric efficiency at low PIPs only.
• Separator effectiveness goes down to zero at some higher pump intake
pressure.
• At higher production GLRs separators can be used at higher PIPs.
• The poor-boy separator is very inefficient; compare points C to C′ and D to D′.
The remedial actions that can be taken to decrease the detrimental effects of free
gas present at pump suction aim at two directions. At greater pump intake
pressures the pump is run deeper so that PIP will be equal to or greater than the
bubble point pressure. On the other hand, at low PIPs a gas anchor should be used
to separate as much free gas as possible before it enters the pump. The reduction
of the dead space in the pump as well as the use of streamlined valves are some
other positive steps to consider.
Pump efficiency can also be poor when pump capacity exceeds well deliverability.
The application of pump-off controllers to produce the well intermittently can
highly increase the efficiency of the whole pumping system. Finally, restrictions in
the pump should be mentioned as possible sources of production loss. These are
especially severe when highly viscous crudes are pumped when special valves
offering low resistance to flow should be used.
Example 4.15
Decide whether the use of a packer-type gas separator (C = 0.03 and
A = 10 sq in) would improve operations at a pump intake pressure of 300 psi;
other well data are contained in the following table
Oil rate = 1,000 STB/d Water rate = 100 STB/d
Production GLR = 100 scf/BBL Pump suction temperature = 150 F
Oil gravity = 30 API Gas SpGr = 0.6
Solution
The decision is based on a comparison of the pump volumetric efficiencies valid
for the cases of all gas pumped and the use of the gas anchor. For both cases
the solution gas–oil ratio and the phases' volume factors at the pump intake
pressure must be calculated first.
Oil specific gravity is found from Eq. (2.4):
The solution gas–oil ratio at suction conditions is found from Eq. (2.10):
Volume factors of water and oil are found from Eq. (2.8) and Eq. (2.11)Eq.
(2.8)Eq. (2.11):
Gas volume factor calculations necessitate the calculation of the critical

parameters of the gas from Eqs. (2.23) and Eq. (2.24)Eq. (2.23)Eq. (2.24):
Pseudo-reduced parameters and the deviation factor are calculated from Eqs
(2.17) and (2.18) and Eq. (2.28)Eqs (2.17)Eq. (2.18)Eq. (2.28), respectively:
Volume factor of gas is calculated from Eq. (2.21):
The volumetric efficiency of the pump for the “all gas pumped” case can now be
calculated from Eq. (4.92) as follows:
For the gas separator case the superficial liquid velocity in the separator body,
vsl, is found from Eq. (3.8):
The volumetric efficiency is evaluated from Eq. (4.93):
Since the pump volumetric efficiency without the gas separator, 58.9%, is
greater than the value just calculated, the use of the separator is not
recommended.
Read full chapter

Wireline Fishing
Joe DeGeare, ... Mark McGurk, in The Guide to Oilwell Fishing Operations, 2003
ELECTRIC SUBMERSIBLE PUMPS

When sucker-rod pumps and downhole hydraulic pumps can no longer lift
sufficient fluid, electric submersible pumps are used. They consist of an electric
motor, a pump, and usually some device for gas separation. To power the electric
motor, an electric conduit must be run down. This cable is strapped to the
production tubing with stainless steel, packing, crate-type straps.
To contain a powerful electric motor and a pump, electric submersible-pump
housings are relatively large in diameter and do not have much clearance between
the pump and casing.
Small deposits such as sand and corrosion between the casing and pump can stick
the pump so it cannot be retrieved. Care should be taken not to pull the tubing in
two because the cable, unlike other wireline, is flexible and quite heavy. If it parts, it
falls and is easily packed down so a center spear or other tool cannot penetrate it to
retrieve it without parting it into short lengths.
When pumps or the tubing become stuck, the tubing string should be free-pointed
and the tubing chemically cut above the stuck point. Most installations include a
check valve in the tubing string to prevent a backflow of fluid when the motor is
turned off, which would cause damage to the motor. Free-point and cutting tools
cannot be run below this check valve, so valves should be placed as low as possible
in the production string.
Only a chemical cut should be made to part the tubing string, as this leaves a sharp
cutting edge on the tubing, which is then used as a knife to cut the electric
conduit. When the chemical cut has been made, the tubing will be parted, but the
conduit (cable) will still be intact. The tubing string is then raised 18–24 in.,
providing a gap at the tubing cut with the conduit pulled taut between the two
sections of tubing.
A cutter with a bumper jar is run on a workstring of sucker rods or small tubing.
The cutter is equipped with a spring-loaded arm that extends from the mandrel.
When the cutter is measured into the depth of the gap, the arm extends, and as the
tool is rotated to the right, the arm catches the cable and pulls it up against the
mandrel of the cutter. By striking a series of blows with the bumper jar, the cable is
severed with the sharp edge of the chemical cut. It is easy to determine when the
cable is cut because torque in the workstring will be lost. When the cable is cut, the
workstring with the cutter and then the production tubing with the electrical cable
strapped to it can be pulled up. This will leave the pump and a short section of
tubing and cable in the well. These should be fished with an overshot or spear and
jarring assembly.
Depending on the design of the electric submersible pump, caution should be
used in jarring upward. Some designs incorporate a flange on top that can be
parted easily. Light blows should be used, both up and down, until some travel in
the fish is detected. When this occurs, continued movement of the pump will work
the fish free.
Read full chapter
Wellhead Assembly
Wan Renpu, in Advanced Well Completion Engineering (Third Edition), 2011
Christmas Tree and Tubinghead for a Sucker Rod Pump Well

1. Christmas tree for conventional sucker rod pump well.
The Christmas tree and tubinghead for a pumping well are used for hanging
tubing, seating tubing-casing annulus, sealing polished rod, and controlling oil
well production. The original flowing-well Christmas tree and tubinghead
remade can be used due to the low pressure borne and the simple structures.
The basic components include tubinghead spool, tubing tee, the rubber valve
for polished rod sealer, and the related valves (Figure 10-9).
Figure 10-9. Christmas tree and tubinghead for sucker rod pump well. 1,
sealing box of polished rod; 2, rubber valve; 3, production valve; 4, tubing
pressure gauge; 5, casing valve; 6, casing pressure gauge; 7, tee; 8, upper
flange of tubinghead; 9, tubinghead; 10, thermometer.
The tubinghead is used for hanging tubing and sealing tubing-casing annulus.
The extension pipeline on the side of the spool can be used for measuring the
depth of working fluid level, venting casing gas, hot well-flushing, and so on.
The tubing tee is connected with the tubinghead by the upper flange of the
tubinghead. Its extension line is connected with the flowline and is the passage
of well fluid flow out of the wellhead.
The polished rod sealer is installed at the top end of the tubing tee. Its
structure is shown in Figure 10-10. During normal production, the rubber
valve is loosened and the polished rod is sealed by the packing element. The
rubber valve is closed before the packing element is changed. After the packing
element is changed, the rubber valve is loosened and normal production is
resumed.
Figure 10-10. Polished rod sealer. 1, main body; 2, sealing rubber; 3, core; 4,
screw rod; 5, seal box; 6, 11, sealing rubber; 7, 12, gland; 8, 13, sealing rubber
gland; 9, copper washer; 10, guide screw.
2. Eccentric tubinghead for testing in annulus.

For a flowing well, a testing instrument can arrive at the reservoir through
tubing. For a pumping well with sucker rod pump, however, the testing
instrument cannot pass through tubing due to the sucker rod in the tubing, so
testing can only be achieved through annulus. This type of tubinghead can
eccentrically hang tubing string and an annulus test passage is formed.
a. Model SPA I single rotating eccentric tubinghead (Figure 10-11). The
technical parameters are as follows.
Nominal pressure 16 MPa Seal pressure 16 MPa
Tester diameter ≤25 mm Flange diameter 380 mm
Steel ring groove diameter 211 mm Test hole thread ZG 1 1/4
Rotation method Tubing Tubing hanger thread 2 7/8 NU
Figure 10-11. Model SPA I single rotating eccentric tubinghead. 1, tee; 2,

rotary nipple; 3, blowout preventing valve; 4, test hole; 5, eccentric tubing
hanger; 6, planar ball bearing; 7, steel ring cap; 8, sticking releasing head;
9, sight hole; 10, casing nipple.
The eccentric tubinghead and tubing hanger are in an eccentric state in

casing. The tubing string in the wellbore is tightly leaned against a side of
the inner wall of the casing. The eccentric tubing hanger is seated on the
casing flange or the casing spool flange by planar ball bearing; thus the
location of the tubing string can change in casing.
When resistance or sticking is generated in the process of downhole
instrument pulling or running in annulus or when the problem of electric
cable twining around the tubing is generated, turning tubing can change
the relative location of the tubing string in the crescent space inside the
casing; thus the sticking and twining can be removed.
b. Model SPA II dual rotating eccentric tubinghead (Figure 10-12). This type
of eccentric tubinghead has all the functions that the single rotating
eccentric tubinghead has. Its distinguishing feature is that the tubinghead
can be decomposed into two pieces with different centers and the
eccentric shift of tubing in the casing can be achieved, so that the problem
of electric cable twining around the tubing may be conveniently removed.
The technical parameters are as follows.
Nominal pressure 14 MPa Seal pressure 14 MPa
Tester diameter ≤25 mm Flange diameter 380 mm
Steel ring groove diameter 211 mm Test hole thread 34 mm
Rotation method Tubing Tubing hanger thread 2 7/8 NU
Figure 10-12. Model SPA II dual rotating eccentric tubinghead. 1, tee; 2,

rotary nipple; 3, valve; 4, union; 5, upper cap; 6, flange; 7, rotary tubing
hanger; 8, bearing; 9, housing; 10, pin; 11, upper bearing seat; 12,
bearing; 13, lower bearing seat.
Read full chapter

Cyclic Steam Stimulation

James J. Sheng, in Enhanced Oil Recovery Field Case Studies, 2013
16.6.7 Gaosheng Field, China

This field in Liaohe, China, had gas cap. Although it also had a bottom water, there
was a barrier so that water coning was not observed. The gas–oil level was 1510 m,
the oil–water level was 1690 m, and the reservoir depth was 1500–1800 m. The
developed area was 14.5 km2. In the horizontal direction, there were seven blocks
among which the blocks 3, 246, and 3618 were the mainly oil-bearing blocks. In
the vertical direction, there were eight layers. Among these layers, Layers L1–L4
were gas-bearing layers, L5, L6, and L7 were the main oil layers (88% oil in place),
and L8 was the aquifer layer. The reservoir thickness was 67.7 m on average. The
porosity was 22–26% and the air permeability was 1000–2300 mD. The reservoir
temperature at 1600 m was 60°C and the initial reservoir pressure was 16.1 mPa.
The oil viscosity in situ was 74–605 mPa·s. The oil viscosity decreased to 6 mPa·s
when the temperature was raised to 200–220°C (Liu, 1987).
Initially the field was produced by mixing light oil and heating rod pumps. Starting
in September 1982, CSS was tested and found successful. In 1984, a development
plan was designed which included:
1. Five-spot patterns of 210 m later infilled to 150 m.
2. Separately developing L5, L6, and L7 because of existence of gas cap and
bottom water.
3. Four phases: initial depletion by mixing light oil and heating rod pumps, CSS,
steam flooding, and cold waterflooding.
4. Completion included gravel packing, wiring wrapped screen, and perforated
prestressed casing.
5. Wells were drilled along the gas–oil ring in L5 to make use of gas cap energy
and control pressure.
Because the reservoir was deep, it was important to reduce heat loss through
wellbores. Measures to reduce heat loss included tubing insulation, high-
temperature metal packer, and filling nitrogen in the annulus. The heat loss was
controlled to be less than 12%.
It was observed that the back-produced water was only 7.8% of the injected. Such
low flow back was caused by high content of clay (7–10%), especially
montmorillonite (90%). Clay swelling adsorbed a lot of water and reduced
permeability. The cumulated water slowed down the heat dissipation into the
reservoir during injection. To solve this problem, surfactants and chemicals to
prevent clay swelling were added in the steam. Adding nitrogen in the steam also
helped water production. Adding thin film spreading agents also helped.
To stop gas cap breakthrough, several wells were drilled to produce gas under a
controlled mode. The pressure of gas cap was controlled not lower than 8 mPa,
and the pressure difference between gas cap and oil layer was controlled.
Read full chapter

13th International Symposium on Process Systems

Engineering (PSE 2018)
Zuo Zeng, Selen Cremaschi, in Computer Aided Chemical Engineering, 2018
4.2 Comparison of the formulations for a hypothetical case study

We also constructed a hypothetical case study where the operating envelope of SRP
is modified by setting the minimum allowable liquid flow rate to 300 BPD. The
planning horizons are 12, 16 and 20 months. The maximum CPU time is limited to
20 hours. Table 1 summarizes the results.
Table 1. The ENPVs, optimality gaps, and solution times for SMILP1 and SMILP2
SMILP1 SMILP2
Months ENPV ($) GAP (%) Times (s) ENPV ($) GAP (%) Times (s)
12 2,783,894 0.08 4948 2,783,894 0.08 20
16 3,416,506 42.51 72000 3,416,507 0.1 1959
20 3,840,889 49.39 72000 3,916,996 11.89 72000
The SMILP1 cannot be solved to optimality for 16-month and 20-month planning
horizons (Table 1), whereas SMILP2 cannot be solved to optimality only for 20-
month planning horizon. We hypothesize that the additional binary variable yi,t,p,s
helps CPLEX to branch better when solving SMILP2.
The solution of the deterministic model, using nominal values of Qrci,
recommends installing and operating SRP throughout the planning horizon. If the
deterministic solution were implemented, the ENPV would have been $3,252,676.
With the deterministic solution, under scenarios with Low outcome of Qrc,SRP, the
production rate violates the operational envelope of SRP in month 13, and the
production is halted. The optimal plan obtained as the solution of SMILP2 installs
SRP initially for all scenarios. At the 7th time period, the ESP is installed for
scenarios with Low outcome of Qrc,SRP while SRP stays in operation for the rest of
the scenarios. The difference between the ENPVs of the stochastic and
deterministic solutions, i.e., the value of the stochastic solution, is $163,831, a 5%
increase from the deterministic solution.
Read full chapter

Recommended publications
Enhanced Oil Recovery

Book • 2013
Well Control for Completions and Interventions

Book • 2017
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering

Journal
Journal of Natural Gas Geoscience

Journal
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. or its licensors or contributors.

ScienceDirect ® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V.

Rod Pump - An Overview - ScienceDirect Topics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rod Pump - An Overview - ScienceDirect Topics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/4/2021 Rod Pump - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

Read full chapter

Read full chapter

Sucker-Rod Pumping System Components and Their

3.7.6.2 The Linear Rod Pump

Figure 3.111. Schematic drawing of the Linear Rod Pump (LRP).

Read full chapter

3.5.3.5 Sucker rod pumps

Figure 3.30. SRP.

Figure 3.31. PD pump volumetric eﬃciency.

Table 3.3. SRP backpressure example

0 psig tbg 200 psig tbg 0 psig tbg 200 psig tbg

Pump discharge at 3000 ft 1311 psig 1511 psig 41 psig 1248 psig

dP across plunger 1280 psi 1480 psi 38 psi 1245 psi

Slippage (gal/day) 7.9 9.1 0.004 7.3

Time to break gas lock 4 hours 3.5 hours 5 days 4 hours

Figure 3.32. Conventional pump jack.

Figure 3.33. Pneumatic SRP linear driver.

Read full chapter

Calculation of Operational Parameters

4.5.3.2 Gassy production

where the variables not deﬁned recently:

Oil rate = 1,000 STB/d Water rate = 100 STB/d

Production GLR = 100 scf/BBL Pump suction temperature = 150 F

Oil gravity = 30 API Gas SpGr = 0.6

Gas volume factor calculations necessitate the calculation of the critical

Volume factor of gas is calculated from Eq. (2.21):

The volumetric eﬃciency is evaluated from Eq. (4.93):

Read full chapter

ELECTRIC SUBMERSIBLE PUMPS

Christmas Tree and Tubinghead for a Sucker Rod Pump Well

2. Eccentric tubinghead for testing in annulus.

Nominal pressure 16 MPa Seal pressure 16 MPa

Tester diameter ≤25 mm Flange diameter 380 mm

Steel ring groove diameter 211 mm Test hole thread ZG 1 1/4

Rotation method Tubing Tubing hanger thread 2 7/8 NU

Figure 10-11. Model SPA I single rotating eccentric tubinghead. 1, tee; 2,

The eccentric tubinghead and tubing hanger are in an eccentric state in

Nominal pressure 14 MPa Seal pressure 14 MPa

Tester diameter ≤25 mm Flange diameter 380 mm

Steel ring groove diameter 211 mm Test hole thread 34 mm

Figure 10-12. Model SPA II dual rotating eccentric tubinghead. 1, tee; 2,

Read full chapter

Cyclic Steam Stimulation

16.6.7 Gaosheng Field, China

Read full chapter

13th International Symposium on Process Systems

4.2 Comparison of the formulations for a hypothetical case study

12 2,783,894 0.08 4948 2,783,894 0.08 20

16 3,416,506 42.51 72000 3,416,507 0.1 1959

20 3,840,889 49.39 72000 3,916,996 11.89 72000

Read full chapter

Enhanced Oil Recovery

Well Control for Completions and Interventions

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering

Journal of Natural Gas Geoscience

Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. or its licensors or contributors.

You might also like