Manual

Selection of Artificial
Lift Mode
Institute of Oil & Gas Production Technology
 Selection of Artificial Lift Mode

Contents

Subject Page no.

1.0 Introduction 2
1.1 Procedure 2
1.2 Applicability 2
1.3 Historical 2
2.0 Input Information 5
2.1 Production Data 5
2.2 Well History 5
2.3 Reservoir Data 6
2.4 Fluid Characteristics 6
2.5 Latest Trending Data 6
2.6 Information on Surface Facilities 6
3.0 Elimination Process 8
3.1 Preliminary Screening Criteria 8
3.2 Well depth and Flow criteria 9
4.0 Systems Analysis 11
5.0 Techno-economic Analysis 12
5.1 Elements of Cost 12
5.2 ONGC policy for project evaluation 12
5.3 Financial model 13
6.0 Comprehensive Decision & Follow-up Analysis 14
7.0 Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Models 15
7.1 Types of MCDM models 15
7.2 Comparison of results from different MCDM models 19
8.0 References 19

Institute of Oil & Gas Production Technology Page 1

 Selection of Artificial Lift Mode

1.0 Introduction
Applying artificial lift technologies for production incurs additional cost which is
prevalently absent when the well is self flowing. The technology adopted necessarily
needs to be suitable, efficient as well as worthy of it’s value in the long run [J.D. Clegg
et.al. (1993)].
Selection of the appropriate mode of artificial lift [ James F. Lea et.al.(1999)] is
based on practical applicative rules and are mostly governed by a gamut of non-
technical factors – such as geographical location, environmental issues etc. However,
techno-economic considerations are applied to evaluate and select the most suitable
mode of artificial lift for a well in particular, a field in total or an asset in in it’s entirety
[Ali Al-Lamki et.al. (2007)].

1.1 Procedure :
Selection of mode of artificial lift is a 5-step procedure :

STEP-1: INPUT INFORMATION : This is basically data collection and needs to
be as accurate as possible.

STEP-2 :ELIMINATION PROCESS : This is a gateway procedure and specific
criteria are placed to reject the non-suitable mode.

STEP-3 :SYSTEMS ANALYSIS : This is the design step. Here Softwares are
utilized to practically design the lift, carry out nodal analysis etc.

STEP-4 :TECHNO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS : Cost considerations are drawn up
here and commercial variant play a role.

STEP-5 :COMPREHENSIVE DECISION & FOLLOW-UP ANALYSIS : This is the final
decision making step, in which, other decisive components are introduced.

1.2 Applicability :
The methodology is applicable in any of the three stages of development :

Well-wise analysis : This predicts the most suitable mode of artificial lift for a
single well based on it’s performance.

Field modeling : Here the individual wells are studied. Nodal analysis is then
carried out to apply the factor introduced by the interconnections.

Asset-based feasibility : This is production profile based study required to
recommend long term requirement of lift – the mode(s) applicable, resources
required and techno-economic feasibility of the scheme.

1.3 Historical :
The selection of the most appropriate method of artificial lift has been the subject of
interest since long and, as on date, there are traditional methods that are available,
which have been recounted chronologically as follows :

Institute of Oil & Gas Production Technology Page 2

 Selection of Artificial Lift Mode

 1988 : High rate Artificial Lift Systems : The introduction of water injection and
water flood concepts for enhancing oil production led to the necessity for
high rate production systems, especially with artificial lift [J.D. Clegg
(1988)]. Technical evaluation of rod pumping, gas lift. ESPs, Hydraulic
pumping & Hydraulic turbine driven pumps were analyzed, with
comprehensive results as under :
1. Selection based on income, operating cost, and capital costs.
2. Rod pumping is good for relatively shallow wells.
3. Gas lift optimization required for high-rate operation.
4. ESP's require relatively large casing for high-rate pumping.
5. Hydraulic pumping has application for special high-rate deep lift.
6. Hydraulic turbine-driven downhole pumps have potential in high-rate
and high-cost applications.

 1993 : Comparison of selection attributes for eight major artificial-lift methods

based ontechnical capabilities [J.D. Clegg et.al. (1993)]: Matrix for the 8
modes of artificial lift were drawn up with parameters compared being
Downhole equipment, Efficiency, Flexibility, Reliability, Capital cost,
Operating cost, Salvage value & Miscellaneous problems.

 1996 : Decision Tree for Selection of Mode of Artificial Lift : The first proposed
decision tree was proposed by Lloyd R. Heinze et.al.(1996). A step-wise
decision making process was conceptualized :
o Step 1 : Reduce possibilities based on technical merit.
o Step 2 : Secondary technical limitations such as Temperature, Personnel
training, Power requirements, Surface constraints, Downhole
limitations viz. sand, scale etc.
o Step 3 : Economic analysis – calculation of present day value over life
time investment
Step 4 : Comprehensive decision based on data from above three steps

 2000 : Review analysis of Artificial lift systems in operating field [M. A. Naguib
et.al. (2000)] : The aspect of review of the mode of artificial lift in
producing reservoirs with artificial lift mechanisms in place was brought
out, evincing economic interests.

 2004 : Artificial Lift Database (ALD) systems : Literature indicates an attempt by

Petroleum Development Oman [NiazAjmi et.al. (2004)]. The database is
limited to ESPs, Rod pumps & PCPs.

Institute of Oil & Gas Production Technology Page 3

 Selection of Artificial Lift Mode

 2006 : Artificial lift selection for CBM dewatering [L. Bassett (2006)] : Design of
Artificial lift systems for CBM wells is required to be done well in advance
considering the NPSH, solids handling and economics requirements.

 2006 : Screening criteria on different artificial lift techniques : A. Taheri et.al

(2006) have attempted to present screening criteria for different modes of
artificial lift for the Kuh-E-Mond field handling heavy oil with oil of 13 deg
API. Gas lift seemed the best option but PCP was adopted considering all
aspects.

 2007 : Artificial lift selection for Heavy Oil DST [Ali-Al Lamki et.al.(2007)] : Heavy
oil presents a different picture compared to non-heavy oils, in the respect
that gas lift is invariably not considered. Amongst all the modes, in case
high pressure gas is available, the best option is to in for gas lift, except
where the oil is heavy. Petroleum Development Oman have worked out a
strategy for evaluation of a DST device for heavy oil wells and Jet pump
with coiled tubing was realized to be the best alternative.

 2007 : Overview of Artificial Lift Systems : A methodology was developed to

evaluate the most suitable mode of artificial lift based on best practices
and failure analysis with particular reference to San Golfo Jorge. It was
presented that artificial lift distribution suitable was about 77% SRPs, 12%
PCPs, 10% ESPs and less than 1% Jet pumps etc.

 2008 : Artificial-Lift Optimisation[S. Willams et.al.(2008)] : Artificial lift has been

applied to the Oritofield and most lift methods have been tried at some
point including Electric Submersible Pumps (ESPs), Rod Pumps, Gaslift, Jet
Pumps and Progressing Cavity Pumps (PCPs). Attempt has been done to
identify the challenges associated with each lift method in this operating
environment and present a lift method selection philosophy.

 2009 : Decision matrix for liquid loading in gas wells for cost/benefit analyses of
liftingoptions : The program based systems with Decision matrix [Han-
Young Park et.al.(2009)] was developed for gas wells where cost benefit
analysis was included as a deciksion item along with technical analysis.

 2010 : Artificial lift selection using sensitivity and risk analysis : Applied to
Vankor field, M.M. Khasanov and co-workers (2010), have evolved a
program based system for sensitivity analysis of various parameters and
risk analysis by the Monte-Carlo method. Extreme sensitivity to well depth
and GOR was indicated.

Institute of Oil & Gas Production Technology Page 4

 Selection of Artificial Lift Mode

 2013 : Selection criteria and new technologies on the artificial lift systems for
heavy and extra heavy oil wells : The criteria developed and applied to
Colombian fields [J.J. Cuesta et.al. (2013)] brought out additional features
over and above standard Artificial lift modes.

2.0 Input Information :

Numerous factors are required to be analyzed, with some data in regular format and
others in discrete information patterns. Few prevalent factors are :
• Well Completion & profile
• Geographical & Environmental conditions
• Reservoir characteristics & Future Development Plans
• Reservoir pressure & Well productivity
• Characteristics of fluids
• Surface Constraints
• Services available
• Economic considerations
• Operating ease
These can be broken down into separate heads as under.

2.1 Production Data : Well production data is the first important source of information. It
tells us how the well has behaved over a period of time since it was brought into
production from a particular zone. For a flowing well, latest data is sought and
historical production is viewed later. For a sick well, last producing data is sought with
the information on why the well ceased to flow. Data accessed is usually :
• Liquid rate
• Oil rate
• Water cut
• Gas rate
• GOR
• FTHP
• Well head temperature

2.2 Well History : One of the most important sources of

information is the well history card. It includes a well
diagram (typical well diagram shown in Fig.1). The well
history card gives :

(a) Well Completion details : The major information

sought here is :
• Well depth – perforation details Fig.1 : Well Diagram

Institute of Oil & Gas Production Technology Page 5

 Selection of Artificial Lift Mode

• Well Deviation
• Production Casing – size & shoe depth
• Tubing – size & shoe depth
• Packers – type & depth
• Other downhole features
(b) Workover details : This gives record of problems in the well & corrective actions
taken.
(c) Stimulation details : Well activation data can be found here.
(d) Well diagram : Pictorial view of the well.

2.3 Reservoir Data : The reservoir data concerning production engineers are :
 Sand details – pay zone
 PVT data :
 Oil API gravity (at reservoir conditions)
 Oil viscosity (test data at different temperatures)
 Oil FVF at different temperatures & pressure
 Gas gravity
 Impurities in gas – CO2, H2S, N2
 Solution GOR (at different temperatures & pressures)
 Water salinity
 Reservoir pressure
 Reservoir temperature

2.4 Fluid Characteristics : It is extremely necessary to know the nature of the well fluid for
which the lab analysis reports as under are relied upon :
 Oil API gravity (stock tank)
 Oil viscosity (test data at different temperatures)
 WAT (Wax Appearance Temperature)
 Pour Point
 SARA (Saturates, Aromatics, Resins & Asphaltenes) analysis

2.5 Latest Trending Data :Knowing the production trending pattern is absolutely
necessary and these are available in the form of :

Flowing gradient survey

Bottom hole pressure surveys

Dynagraphs(for SRPs)

2.6 Information on Surface facilities :These include :

 Wellhead data
 Separator pressure
 Gas lift pressure (for G/L)

Institute of Oil & Gas Production Technology Page 6

 Selection of Artificial Lift Mode

3.0 Elimination Process :

Every scientific study starts with an ab-initio condition, considering all alternatives,
and then rejecting unsuitable elements to arrive at a set of probable alternatives,
which need be compared on specific bases to arrive at the ideal solution. The first step
is therefore to set up a screening criteria and de-list all unsuitable modes of artificial
lift.

3.1 Preliminary Screening Criteria : The major attributes of each of the modes of artificial
lift are tabulated below at Table-I.

TABLE - I : Major Operating Limits for Artificial Lift Modes

(from Weatherford Inc.)

Progressive Electrical Hydraulic

Operating Rod Gas Plunger
Cavity Submersible Lift/
Parameters Pumping lift lift
Pumps Pumps Jet Pump

Operating
100 – 2000- 1000- 5000- 5000- 8000-
Depth (TVD)
15000 4500 10000 10000 10000 19000
(ft)
Max.Optg
Depth (TVD) 16000 6000 15000 15000 15000 19000
(ft)
Operating 5– 5– 100- 50 – 100 - 1–
flow (BFPD) 1500 2200 30000 500 10000 5
Maximum
Operating 6000 4500 40000 >15000 30000 200
flow (BFPD)
Operating
100- 75- 100- 100- Max Max
Temperature
350 150 275 250 120 120
(˚F)
Maximum.
Optg.Temp.
(˚F) (with 550 250 400 500 400 400
special
modification)
Maximum
< 15 deg/ < 15 deg/ <24deg/
Wellbore 100 ft 100 ft
0-90 100 ft
0-70 0 -80
Deviation
API Gravity / GLR>300
Fluid > 8˚ API < 35 º API > 10 º API > 15 º API > 8 º API SCF/bbl/
condition 1000 ft
System
45-60% 40-70% 35-60% 10-30% 10-30% N/A
efficiency

Institute of Oil & Gas Production Technology Page 7

 Selection of Artificial Lift Mode

Screening criteria employ a gateway system as follows :

Screening Criterion G/L SRP ESP PCP JP P/L

Location Offshore YES NO YES YES NO YES
#1
Location Onshore YES YES YES YES YES YES
Temperature < 150 degF YES YES YES YES YES YES
#2 150<Temp.< 250 degF NO YES YES YES YES YES
Temperature > 250 degF NO YES MOD MOD NO NO
Viscosity < 1000 cP YES YES YES YES YES YES
#3 1000<Viscosity <10000 cP MOD YES MOD YES YES NO
Viscosity > 10000 cP NO YES NO YES NO NO
Sand/ Solids < 2 g/l YES YES YES YES YES YES
#4 10<Sand/ Solids < 2 g/l YES YES NO YES YES NO
Sand/ Solids > 10 g/l YES NO NO YES YES NO
#5 Wax formation NO YES NO YES YES NO

YES = Suitable NO = Not suitable MOD = Modification required

3.2 Well depth and Flow Criteria : The bar charts given in Fig.2 indicate the well depths
and flows possible from the different modes of artificial lift :

Fig. 2 : Well depth and Flow criteria for artificial lift mode selection

Institute of Oil & Gas Production Technology Page 8

 Selection of Artificial Lift Mode

As flow is directly related to well depth, the analysis is further detailed out using the
following graphs – one for High volumes featuring ESP, Gas Lift and Hydraulic Jet and
another for Low volumes, featuring PCP, SRP, Hydraulic reciprocating pumps & Plunger
lift.

Fig. 3 : Selection criteria for High volume artificial lift modes

Fig. 4 : Selection criteria for Low volume artificial lift modes

Form the above, two to three modes of artificial lift are found invariably suitable,
except under very harsh conditions, where the criteria limit the selection to one.

Institute of Oil & Gas Production Technology Page 9

 Selection of Artificial Lift Mode

4.0 Systems Analysis :

The selected two or three modes of artificial lift need further analysis which requires
design review. Softwares are used for design, prevalent softwares being used are :

Software Licensor Description

PIPESIM Schlumberger Single/multiphase pipeline/ nodal analysis, ESP and
gas lift design and analysis
PROSPER Petroleum Well modeling / nodal analysis of self flow , Gas lift ,
Experts ESP & hydraulic pump wells from reservoir to well
head , Design and analysis of gas lift , ESP &
Hydraulic pumps.
WELFLO Weatherford Well modeling of self flow , Gas lift & ESP wells from
reservoir to well head , Design and analysis of gas lift
& ESP.
GAP Petroleum Integrated flow network modeling along with
Experts “PROSPER ” software
REO Weatherford Integrated flow network modeling along with
“WELFLO ” software
GLIDE IOGPT IOGPT In house developed gas lift design software -
used for Intermittent gas lift
OLGA Schlumberger Dynamic simulation modeling suitable for Intermittent
gas lift design
RODSTAR Theta SRP design – including deviated wells
Enterprises
SubPUMP IHS Global Design and analysis of ESP
PC Pump C-FER Design and analysis of PCP
Technologies

The design methodology followed is as under :

IPR & VLP SRP design

modelling, IPR
matching with
ESP design
correlations, lift
design
requirements PCP design
Continuous Gas
Lift design
Jet Pump
design

Nodal Analysis Intermittent Gas Plunger Lift design

for network Lift design (if (if required)
required)

Fig. 5: Design methodology for selection of artificial lift modes

Institute of Oil & Gas Production Technology Page 10

 Selection of Artificial Lift Mode

The design outputs provide the following information :

1. Size or API no. of unit required
2. Power requirements
3. Gas requirements
4. Power fluid requirements
5. Additional equipment required
Based on the designs, the following are further evaluated :
1. Space requirements at wellhead or centralized location
2. Services required
3. Maintenance requirements
4. Control system philosophy
The above information is then used for Techno-economic analysis.

5.0 Techno-economic Analysis :

Techno-economic analysis requires support of financial functions and policies laid
down for costing and financial evaluation.

5.1 Elements of Cost :

Financial analysis presents three aspects of cost :
 CAPEX : Short form for Capital Expenditure, it includes all types of expenditure
made to gain Assets which may be in the form of :
o Civil constructions
o Equipment & Machinery
o Associated piping, electrical, instrument etc. works
o Services associated – One time
o Patent rights charges
CAPEX is liable for DEPRECIATION
 OPEX : Short form for Operating Expenditure, it includes
o Working Capital,
o License fees
o Cash outgo for Liabilities
OPEX is liable for Tax rebate
 Revenue : These are earnings derived after deducting all taxes and OPEX. Revenue
is discounted in later years at a given rate called DISCOUNTING FACTOR.

5.2 ONGC policy for project evaluation : The authority for project evaluation in ONGC is
Project Appraisal Section (PAS), Scope Complex, New Delhi. Guidelines are issued by
PAS from time to time, which include the following (values given are as at present)
 Escalation rate for CAPEX @ 6% per year
 Escalation rate for OPEX @ 8% per year

Institute of Oil & Gas Production Technology Page 11

 Selection of Artificial Lift Mode

 Hurdle rates for crude oil (for ONGC project) : Base : $ 70/ bbl
 Gas rates to be computed from Gas NCV @ $8.5/ MMBtu
 Discounting factor for cash flows = 14%
 WDV method of CAPEX depreciation : 20% in first year & 15% yearly therafter
 Corporate Tax rate : 33.22 %
 For revenue calculations, PAS guidelines provide the following mechanism :

4% VAT deduction on bare price : VAT = 4 x Bare price/ 104

Post well head expenses to be retained : Rs.1251/MT

Wellhead price = Bare price – VAT – Post wellhead expenses

Royalty @ 20% on wellhead price : Royalty – 20 x Wellhead price/120

OIDB cess @ Rs. 2500/MT – to be deducted

NCCD @ Rs. 50/MT – to be deducted

Educational cess @ 3% of OIDB cess + NCCD – to be deducted

Further to the above, the policy requires treatment of CAPEX, OPEX and Revenue as
under :

 CAPEX  Year-wise phasing of Capital expenditure to be done

 For each subsequent year, CAPEX to be escalated @ 6% per year
for that year
 CAPEX to be depreciated by WDV method using 20%
depreciation in first year followed by 15% each year
 CAPEX not to include well cost, drilling cost or workover cost
 OPEX OPEX to be derived from OPEX drivers
Balance sheet OPEX data can be used – however, Schedule 21 of
balance sheet to be used which gives total OPEX
OPEX consists of three parts – Lifting cost, Processing cost &
Transportation cost : Only Lifting costs to be taken
Year-wise phasing of Operating expenditure to be done
For each subsequent year, OPEX to be escalated @ 8% per year
for that year
 Revenue
Revenue to be computed separately for oil and gas

Oil revenue to be reduced by 2% for line losses

Gas revenue to be reduced by 1% for line losses

Exchange factor Rs/$ = 50 to be considered

5.3 Financial Model : The Financial model is then constructed on an Excel worksheet with
the methodology as provided by PAS. The financial model is constructed over a life
time cycle of the project – derived from the Production profile. Phasing of CAPEX is
done based on Lead-time analysis of equipment to be procured. Similarly, OPEX rivers
are built-up on service requirements generated from field for operation and
maintenance of the project equipment over the life cycle and include utilities and
extraneous/ outsourced services. The Financial model then constructed is as under :

Institute of Oil & Gas Production Technology Page 12

 Selection of Artificial Lift Mode

NET CASH FLOW (NCF)

PRESENT VALUE (PV)

TAXABLE REVENUE
ESCALATED OPEX

TOTAL REVENUE
ACTUAL CAPEX

DEPREC-ITION

GAS REVENUE
ACTUAL OPEX
DEPRECIATED

OIL REVENUE
ESCALATED

TAX @
CAPEX

CAPEX
YEAR

15.00% 33.22% 14.00%

T1 = 0.3322 x TR1
TR1 = R1-O1-DC1

CF1 = R1-C1-O1
R1 = GR1+OR1
DC1= C1-D1

PV1 = CF1/
D1=0.2C1

(1.14^1)
O1 = X
C1=A

OR1
GR1
1 A X

T1 = 0.3322 x TR2
DC2 = DC1+C2-D2

TR2 = R2-O2-DC2

CF2 = R2-C2-O2
R2 = GR2+OR2
O2 = 1.08 x Y
D2=0.2C2+

PV2 = CF2/
C2 = 1.06B

(0.15DC1)

(1.14^2)
OR2
GR2
2 B Y
O3 = 1.08 x 1.08 x Z

T1 = 0.3322 x TR3
C3 = 1.06X 1,06XC

DC3 = DC2+C3-D3

TR3 = R3-O3-DC3

CF3 = R3-C3-O3
R3 = GR3+OR3
D3=0.2C3+

PV3 = CF3/
(0.15DC2)

(1.14^3)
OR3
GR3

3 C Z

x and so on ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

IRR = IRR (NCF1 : NCFx) NPV = Ʃ (PV1 : PVx)

6.0 Comprehensive decision & Follow-up Analysis :

With the completion of systems analysis and Techno-economic analysis, comparison is
drawn using the data arrived at. To add to the techno-economic analysis results, the
following environmental factors are considered, which may be grouped into three
categories :

Technical Factors :
 Electricity supply at remote locations
 Continuous High pressure gas supply for Gas lift operations
 Accessibility – for maintenance
 Ability for regular monitoring/ Online monitoring systems
 Availability & accessibility of work-over Rigs

Institute of Oil & Gas Production Technology Page 13

 Selection of Artificial Lift Mode

Local Factors :
Operation in urban areas – limited access
Theft of lube oil from SRPs
Cable damages – due to excavations
Deterioration/ loss of parts of Artificial lift devices during prolonged storage

Statutory Factors :
• Use of copper cables in open areas – DGMs requirement – theft hazard
• Venting of annulus gas into atmosphere – environmental issues
Follow-up analysis a pre-requisite for any design for it’s validation, after
implementation in field. Input data from previous follow-ups is also included in
comprehensive decision making.

7.0 Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) models :

The trend for selection of mode of artificial lift, in the recent past has been towards
decision making models known as MCDM or Multi Criteria Decision Making models.
MCDM models are developed using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) developed
by Thomas L. Saaty (1980).
AHP allows the use of qualitative as well as quantitative criteria in decision making
evaluation, based on the following procedure :
 Information Is decomposed into a hierarchy of :

Alternatives

Criteria
 Information is synthesized to determine relative rankings of alternatives
 Comparison using informed judgments/ statistical data to derive weights and
priorities
 Multiplication of weights to the criteria dimensions to arrive at the logically
optimized solution

7.1 Types of MCDM models : MCDM refers to making decisions in the presence of
multiple, usually conflicting criteria. The models of MCDM can be broadly classified
into two categories:

Multiple Attribute Decision Making (MADM) models have generally discrete
Multiple Attribute Decision Making (MADM) are generally discrete, with a limited
number of predetermined alternatives. Different models developed are :

 Optimal pumping unit search (OPUS) : Developed by Valentine & Hoffman as an

expert system [D.A. Espin et.al (1994)]. It describes the optimum pumping-unit
search program, which consists of

Institute of Oil & Gas Production Technology Page 14

 Selection of Artificial Lift Mode

Multi Criteria Decision

Making (MCDM)
models

Multiple attribute decision Multiple objective

making (MADM) decision making (MODM)

Decision variable values that Optimal Decision variable values

are determined in a conti- pumping that are discrete, with a
nuous or integer domain, with unit search limited number of pre-
either an infinitive or a large (OPUS) determined alternatives
number of choices

SEDLA software
based model VIKOR TOPSIS
ELECTRE
(VIsekriterijumsko model
(Elimination
KOmpromisno
Et Choix
WPM SAW Rangiranje),
Traduisant
(weighted (simple compromise
He realite)
product additive ranking model
model
model) weighting)
model

Fig. 6 : Multi Criteria Decision Making Models

 Knowledge base containing the complete set of specific information on the

domain of expertise
 Inference engine with the data and heuristics of the knowledge base to solve
the problem
 Interactive modules enabling very simple use of the expert system

 SEDLA software based model : SEDLA, was developed as an expert system

developed to help in the selection of the best lift method for a well or group of
wells [D.A. Espin et.al. (1994)]. An expert system (E.S.) is a computer program
which helps users solve problems by providing expert advise. E.S. have in
common that they incorporate human expert knowledge in a data bank and
make use a dedicated development shell.

 WPM (weighted product model): The WPM is often called dimensionless

analysis because its mathematical structure eliminates any units of measure.

Institute of Oil & Gas Production Technology Page 15

 Selection of Artificial Lift Mode

Each decision alternative is compared with the others by multiplying a number

of ratios, one for each decision criterion. Each ratio is raised to the power
equivalent to the relative weight of the corresponding criterion.

 SAW (simple additive weighting) model : This model is also called as Weighted
Sum Method [M. Alemi et.al., (2013)] and is the simplest and still the widest
used MADM method. The main procedure of SAW model for the selection of the
best alternative from among those available has Lift is as follows :
 At first, it is required to allocate suitable quantities scaled from 0 through 10
for the alternative relative to the criteria qualities, (higher each of their
qualities, more its value out of 10), the number of the alternatives and the
number of the criteria have been considered as the number of matrix rows (i)
and matrix columns (j) in the alternatives relative to the criteria quantities
matrix (decision matrix) respectively.
 The relative scores of different criteria - relative to Production, Reservoir and
Well constraints as well as Produced fluid properties and Surface
infrastructure constraints are based on a data bank generated by
Schlumberger. The value of 1 (good to excellent) has been considered as 7
out of 10, the value of 2 (fair to good) has been considered as 5 out of 10 and
the value of 3 (not recommended and poor) has been considered as 3 out of
10.
 Then, the linearly normalizing of the resulted alternatives relative to the
criteria quantities matrix is done.
 Next, the criteria quantities is weighted by the Entropy method.
 Finally, multiplying the normalized matrix by the resulted values, the highest
value in the final resulted in resulted criteria weights matrix and sorting the
final matrix shows the best alternative for selection.

Multiple Objective Decision Making (MODM) models have decision variable

values that are determined in a continuous or integer domain, with either an
infinitive or a large number of choices, the best of which should satisfy the decision
maker’s constraints and preference priorities. Some popular MODM models are :

 VIKOR (VIsekriterijumskoKOmpromisnoRangiranje), compromise ranking

model : The VIKOR model for the selection of suppliers based on Rough Set
Theory and VIKOR algorithm. The method is quite similar to SAW model.

 ELECTRE (Elimination Et Choix Traduisant He Realite) model : ELECTRE

model is an outranking model in which a finite set of alternatives is ranked
from the best to the worst.

Institute of Oil & Gas Production Technology Page 16

 Selection of Artificial Lift Mode

Fig. 7 : Typical set of Alternatives for ranking used in ELECTRE Model

 At first, it is required to allocate suitable quantities (V) scaled from 0

through 10 for the alternative relative to the criteria qualities, (higher each
of their qualities, more its value out of 10).
 Next, the normalizing of the resulted alternatives relative to the criteria
quantities matrix is done.
 Then, the criteria quantities is weighted by means of the Entropy method.
Multiplying the normalized matrix (N) by the alternatives relative to the
criteria resulted weights diametrical matrix (Wn * n), the normalized
weighted matrix (V) is obtained.
 Then, the determination of the harmonic and the non harmonic
complexes has to be done in regard to the criteria with positive or

Institute of Oil & Gas Production Technology Page 17

 Selection of Artificial Lift Mode

negative aspects. It means that in the comparison between two

alternatives (for instance, SRP with PCP), a criterion with positive
aspect and higher value as well a criterion with negative aspect and
lower value have been determined as the harmonic complexes of the
two related alternatives and if vice versa, as the non harmonic
complexes of the two related alternatives.
 So, once the harmonic and the non harmonic related matrixes have
been obtained, the effective harmonic (H) and non harmonic (G)
related matrixes has to be calculated by means of the division of the
harmonic and the non harmonic matrixes all values summation
respectively by the harmonic matrix number of all values.
 Finally, multiplying the effective harmonic matrix (H) by the effective
non harmonic matrix (G), the effective overall matrix (F) for the final
result is obtained.

 TOPSIS model :This model was developed by Hwang and Yoon (1981). TOPSIS
stands for Technique of Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution. This
method considers three types of attributes or criteria :
 Qualitative benefit attributes/criteria
 Quantitative benefit attributes
 Cost attributes or criteria
The model is based on the concept that the chosen alternative should have
the shortest Euclidean distance from the ideal solution and the farthest from
the negative ideal solution. Steps involved are :

Step 1: Construct normalized decision matrix. This step transforms
various attribute dimensions into non-dimensional attributes, which
allows comparisons across criteria. Normalize scores or data as follows:
rij = xij/ (Σx2ij) for i = 1, …, m; j = 1, …, n

Step 2: Construct the weighted normalized decision matrix. Assume we
have a set of weights for each criteria wj for j = 1,…n. Multiply each
column of the normalized decision matrix by its associated weight. An
element of the new matrix is:
vij = wj rij

Step 3: Determine the ideal and negative ideal solutions.

Ideal solution.
A* = { v1* , …, vn*}, where vj* ={ max (vij) if j ∈ J ; min (vij) if j ∈ J' }

Negative ideal solution.
A' = { v1' , …, vn' }, where v' = { min (vij) if j ∈ J ; max (vij) if j ∈ J' }

Step 4: Calculate the separation measures for each alternative.

The separation from the ideal alternative is:
Si * = [ Σ (vj*– vij)2 ] ½ i = 1, …, m

Institute of Oil & Gas Production Technology Page 18

 Selection of Artificial Lift Mode

Similarly, the separation from the negative ideal alternative is:

S'i = [ Σ (vj' – vij)2 ] ½ i = 1, …, m

Step 5: Calculate the relative closeness to the ideal solution Ci*
Ci* = S'i / (Si* +S'i ) , 0 < Ci* < 1
Select the option with Ci* closest to 1.

7.2 Comparison of results from different MCDM models : The TOPSIS model thus gives a
solution that is not only closest to the hypothetically best, that is also the farthest
from the hypothetically worst alternative. In working, it is similar to ELECTRE model.

Fig.8 presents the analysis done by M/s. Schlumberger using different models. Of all
the three used, TOPSIS model was found to be most relevant.

8.0 References :

Ali Al-Lamki, Said Al-Hajri, Masoud Al-Salmi, And Murshid Al-Riyami (2007) –
“Artificial-Lift Selection & Design For Down-Hole Sampling and Heavy Oil Multi-
Zone Testing”, - Middle East Artificial Lift Forum, 19 - 20 February 2007, Muscat,
URL : www.mealf.com, 11 pp.

A. Taheri and A. Hooshmandkoochi (2006) –“ Optimum Selection of Artificial-Lift

System for Iranian Heavy-Oil Fields” (SPE 99912) 2006 SPE Western Regional/AAPG
Pacific Section/GSA Cordilleran Section Joint Meeting held in Anchorage, Alaska,
U.S.A., 8–10 May 2006, 12 pp.

D.A. Espin. S. Gasbarri and J.E. Chacin (1994) – “Expert System for Selection of
Optimum Artificial Lift Method” (SPE 26967) - III Latin American/Carribean
Petroleum En.glneermg Confererce held in Buenos AIres. Argentina, 27-29 April
1994, 30 pp.

Institute of Oil & Gas Production Technology Page 19

 Selection of Artificial Lift Mode

Han-Young Park, Gioia Falcon and Catalin Teodoriu (2009) – “Decision matrix for
liquid loading in gas wells for cost/benefit analyses of lifting options”, Journal of
Natural Gas Science and Engineering, Vol. 1, (2009) pp. 72–83

James F. Lea and Henry V. Nickens (1999) – “Selection of Artificial Lift” – (SPE
52157), Presentation at the 1999 SPE Mid-Continent Operations, Symposium held
in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, March 28-31, 1999, pp. 1-30

J.D. Clegg (1988) – “High-Rate Artificial Lift” (SPE 17638) - Journal of Petroleum
Technology, March 1988, pp. 277-282

J.D. Clegg, S.M. Bucaram, N.W. Heln Jr. (1993) – “Recommendations and
Comparisons for Selecting Artificial-Lift Methods” – (SPE 24834), Journal of
Petroleum Technology, Vol. 10, December(1993), pp 1128- 1167.

J.J. Cuesta and J.D. Ortega (2013) – “Selection Criteria and New Technologies on the
Artificial Lift Systems for Heavy and Extra Heavy Oil Wells in Colombia”(SPE 165008)
- SPE Artificial Lift Conference- Americas held in Cartagna, Colombia 21-22 May
2013, 7 pp.

L. Bassett (2006) – “Guidelines to Successful Dewatering of CBM wells” (SPE

104290) – 2006 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting held in Canton, Ohio, USA, 11-13
October 2006, 5 pp.

Lloyd R. Heinze, Herald W. Winkler and James F. Lea (1996) – Decision Tree for
Selection of Artificial Lift Method”(SPE 29510) – Production Operations Symposium
held in Oklahoma city, OK, USA, 2-4 April 1996, 8 pp.

M. A. Naguib, S.E. Shaheen, A. El-Wahab Bayoumi and N.A. El-Emam (2000) –

“Review of Artificial Lift in Egypt”(SPE 64508) - SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas
Conference and Exhibition held in Brisbane, Australia, 16–18 October 2000, 9 pp.

Marcelo Hirschfeldt, Paulino Martinez and Fernando Distel (2007) – “Artificial-Lift

Systems Overview and Evoluition in a Mature Basin : Case Study of Golfo San
Jorge”(SPE 108054) – 2007 SPE Latin American and carribean Petyroleum
Engineering Conference held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 15-18 April 2007, 13 pp.

Mehrdad Alemi, Hossein Jalalifar, Gholamreza Kamali and Mansour Kalbasi (2010) –
“A prediction to the best artificial lift method selection on the basis of TOPSIS
model”- Journal of Petroleum and Gas Engineering Vol. 1(1), pp 009-015, March
2010

Institute of Oil & Gas Production Technology Page 20

 Selection of Artificial Lift Mode

M.M. Khasanov, R.A. Khabibulin, A.A. Pashali and A.A. Semenov (2010) – “Approach
to Selection of the Optiomal Lift Tehcnique in the Vanlkor Field” (SPE 134774) - SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Florence, Italy 19-22 September
2010, 10 pp.

Niaz Ajmi and Sheikha Al Barwani (2004) – “Artificial Lift Database”, URL :
http://www.slideshare. net/BPfanpage/artificial-lift-dbase-content-what-is-ald

Sandy Williams,Rafael Eduardo Rozo, Fernando Perez Aya and Jose Ismael Salazar
Hernandez (2008) – “Artificial-Lift Optimisation In The Orito Field”(SPE 116659-MS),
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, USA, 21-24
September 2008, 24 pp.

Thomas L. Saaty (1980) - Fundamentals of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, RWS

Publications, 4922 Ellsworth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15413, 2000 pp.

Institute of Oil & Gas Production Technology Page 21

 Selection of Artificial Lift Mode

Editorial Board

1. Sh V.V. Manchalwar, GGM (P)

2. Dr. K.R. Rao, DGM (P)

Institute of Oil & Gas Production Technology Page 22