SPE-184188-MS

Performance Analysis for Progressive Cavity Pump PCP Production

Scenario in Sandy and Heavy Oil Wells

Muchammad R. Alfaqih, Alexis Ariwibowo, and Christina T. Juliana, PT. Medco E&P

Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Middle East Artificial Lift Conference and Exhibition held in Manama, Kingdom of Bahrain, 30 November-1
December 2016.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Sand problem and heavy oil has been the major constraint in producing oil in Sesanip Field Tarakan. The
field has unconsolidated sand reservoir with grain size D50 of 200 – 300 µm and oil gravity of 18-22 deg
API. Under those conditions, Progressive Cavity Pump (PCP) performance and lifetime has been a major
constraint in producing the field. Five production scenario been implemented to acquire the most optimum
lifting method.
Production scenario was divided into two phases. First phase was implementing PCP without sand
control. This production scenario was used as a baseline for improvement. Second phase of the production
scenario was to add sand control into the production system. Improvement between the two production
scenario will be assessed using several criteria; lifetime, cumulative production, economic analysis. In
the first phase, three production scenarios with PCP below perforation, PCP above perforation, and PCP
with controlled production rate were implemented. Whereas in the second phase, results from downhole
configuration of screen installed to pump intake, and installation of screen using seal-bore packer were
compared with first phase results.
Comparison between five producing scenario were analyzed according to the criteria determined. Based
on the first phase results, excessive sand production was evident when producing in optimum rate. In order to
minimize sand production, production rate must be limited and therefore sacrificing artificial lift potential.
Second phase gave two different results. PCP installation with sand screen installed to pump intake gave
the lowest cumulative production, lowest revenue, and longest pay out time. Although sand screen was
used, the lack of sealing above screen meant that sand was allowed to pile up in the annulus and eventually
restricting influx. PCP with sand screen installation using seal-bore packer delivers optimum trade-off
between lifetime, cumulative production and economic values. By applying this production method, sand
production from the reservoir will naturally form sand-pack between perforation and sand screen. Although
this sand-pack would decrease productivity index, but it compensates with higher lifetime. Based on recent
well service activity, no sand pile was present inside screen or above seal-bore packer.
Key Words: PCP, production scenario
2 SPE-184188-MS

Introduction
Sesanip wells are classified as field with low API gravity ranged at 18-22 deg API with oil viscosity 17.75-
centipoise or 56 times higher than water viscosity that is 0.315 cp at 194 degree Fahrenheit. Connate water
saturation (Swc) is around 60% and solution gas drive as driving mechanism kept the stability of water cut
in production performance below 70%.
Production performance in Sesanip field has always been restricted by sand production. Sand production
will damage downhole pump and also decrease productivity index caused by sand pile inside well bore.
Historically, oil production in this field only last for 2 (two) weeks and sand rate production can be up
to 3.36 bbl per day. Maintaining production requires high cost and effort to fulfil well service operation
requirements to change downhole pump and clean up sand. Combination of low production lifetime, high
rig cost results in high lifting cost and potentially make the field uneconomical to be produced.
Constraints in producing in Sesanip field have to be overcome with the objective to control sand
production, increase PCP lifetime, and eventually reduce lifting cost. Several methods of sand control
such as production rate restriction and mechanical sand control installation has been tested to analyze the
production scenario that best suites Sesanip field characteristics.

PCP Concept
PCP consist of two basic section, the surface section which are drive head and control panel and the
subsurface section which is divided into stator, rotor, and sucker rod. Rotor and sucker rod suspend in
drivehead and stator is coupled with tubing, the No Turn Tool (NTT) is used to latch stator into casing as
safety device. The working principle of PCP is when the drive head energized with electricity, it rotates
the sucker rod and single helical rotor eccentrically inside the double helical stator and creates differential
pressure between pump intake and discharge point at wellhead. With sufficient differential pressure, A
series of sealed cavities between rotor and stator will delivers fluid from pump intake into discharge at the
wellhead. PCP is an artificial lift with non pulsating flow type.
To optimize the well production, some parameters which are pump submergence, fluid production,
torque, speed (rotation per minute/RPM), and sand production must be controlled. Each of the parameter
relates with PCP system performance monitoring with description, pump submergence and fluid production
to monitor the well productivity index (PI) to avoid pump off, torque and speed is controlled with maximum
load and automatic shut down to limit the maximum torque and never exceed 90% of yield strength for the
known size and grade of sucker rod, last but not the least fluid production will affect to sand production with
such a linear relation thus to control the sand production then the fluid production must be managed (for
correlation between fluid production into sand production if no sonic log data, could be used the production
history data).

Sand Control Method

The production of formation sand with oil and/or gas from sandstone formations creates a number of
potentially dangerous and costly problems. Losses in production can occur as the result of sand partially
filling up inside the wellbore. If the flow velocities of the well cannot transport the produced sand to the
surface, this accumulation of sand may shut off production entirely. If shutoff occurs, the well intervention
must be done to circulate or bail out the sand in the casing before production can resume. Several significant
factors contributing to sand productions are the degree of formation consolidation, the type and amount of
cementitious material present, and the type and amount of fluid being produced.
Four groups of sand control methods that are commonly known are:
1. Production Restriction
SPE-184188-MS 3

One means of reducing sand production is to restrict the production rate. This method has the lowest
initial cost, but limiting production rate may not be profitable, depending on the critical rate calculated.
2. Mechanical Methods
This is the most common well treatment for sand control. Mechanical sand control methods include
the use of device installed downhole that causes the sand to bridge or filters the produced fluids. The
devices installed include slotted liners, wire-wrapped screens, prepacked screens, metal filter screens
that can be combined with packers and / or gravel pack procedures.
3. In-Situ Chemical Consolidation
Sand control by chemical consolidation involves the process of injecting plastics or plastic-forming
chemicals into the naturally unconsolidated formation, which provides grain-to-grain cementation.
4. Combination Methods.
Methods in this category combine technologies of both chemical consolidation and mechanical
sand-control.
With the exception of production restriction methods, the remaining methods provide some means of
mechanical support for the formation and help prevent formation movement during stresses that result from
fluid flow or pressure drop in the reservoir. In this paper, the authors will present and analyze the application
of sand control using production restriction method and mechanical methods.

Mechanical Methods
Mechanical methods are the most common well treatments for sand control. Mechanical sand control
methods are diverse, but they always include some type of device installed downhole that causes the sand
to bridge or filters the produced fluids. These devices include a wide array of slotted liners, wire-wrapped
screens, prepacked screens, and metal filter screens which are generally used with gravel-pack procedures.
Screens and slotted liners encompass a broad range of downhole-filtration devices. Several types of screen
that are commonly used are wire-wrapped screens, prepacked screens, and so called premium screens.
Variations in screen designs are affected by cost, durability, and flow-through characteristics.
Gravel-packing is a mechanical bridging technique that involves placing and tightly packing a large
volume of sized proppant between the formation face or perforation tunnels. A filter device is used that is
fine enough to retain the proppant in direct contact with the formation sand, thus preventing its movement
toward the wellbore.

Sand Sieve and Fluid Test Analysis

Lab analysis is conducted to provide the basic data about fluid and sand size relates with Artificial Lift
selection and type, and the implemented production scenarios. Two basic fluid analyses, aromatic content
analysis and swelling test analysis, is used to choose the type of elastomer. Sand size is defined by sand size
lab analysis which is divided into sand sieve analysis as conventional lab analysis, the sand sample is sieving
by some sieve size with the smallest hole size is set at the top of the sieve tool and the biggest hole size is
set at the bottom of the sieve tool, after sieving process the sand sample will separate in each sieve size and
convert into percentage result. Advanced sand size lab analysis is laser particle size analysis which is by
applying laser beam into sand sample then the sand size is defined from the laser beam angle reading which
has the inverse proportional relation with sand size, the result reading is percentage in each of sand size.

Application
PCP Design
Laboratory test results for sand sieve and fluid test is used for basis design in determining the elastomer
selection. In selecting the appropriate elastomer compound suitable for Sesanip field, the properties have
4 SPE-184188-MS

to be chemical resistant, abrasive resistant. Unfortunately in general, these 2 (two) properties compromise
each other. Chemical resistant elastomer does not have the necessary durability in resisting severe abrasive
condition, while abrasive resistant elastomer is prone to high aromatic fluid.
Fluid test result shown in table-1 indicates that producing fluid in Sesanip field has a high aromatic
content of 9.185 %mol. Previous production history also shows severe sand production with sand size
distribution shown in fig-1 and fig-2. Measured D50 is 279.9µm. Elastomer selection for Sesanip field was
made based on high chemical resistant consideration and abrasive condition will be minimized by restricting
sand production into PCP pump.

Table 1—Sesanip Fluid Laboratory Test Analysis Result

Lab test type Results Unit

Paraffin 8.355 % mol

Aromatic 9.185 % mol

Total heavies compound 74.52 % mol

Figure 1—Sesanip Sand Sieve Distribution Graphic

SPE-184188-MS 5

Figure 2—Sesanip Sand Sieve Distribution Table

Production Scenarios
Well was produced by evaluating results from two production phase, and five production scenarios to acquire
the most optimum lifting method. Production scenario and well configuration classification can be seen in
fig-3.
6 SPE-184188-MS

Figure 3—Sesanip Two Phase and Five Scenario Production Method

1st phase, production scenario without any sand control, consists of 3 production scenario:
– PCP production uncontrolled rate with pump setting depth (PSD) above perforation
This production method was intended to avoid sand contact with PCP pump. The well produced
for 14 days and was eventually shut-in due to sand pile inside wellbore that fill-up and cover the
perforation interval.
– PCP production uncontrolled rate with PSD below perforation
This production method was intended to produce the sand production and minimize sand pile
inside wellbore. It gave more lifetime compare to the previous scenario and produced for 17 days. The
intention of producing sand to surface was confirmed by a lower amount sand pile inside wellbore.
– PCP production controlled rate
This production method was intended to minimize sand production from formation by limiting
flow from reservoir below critical rate. This method proves to give one of the highest lifetimes.

2nd phase, production scenario with sand control, consists of 2 production scenario:
SPE-184188-MS 7

– PCP production with packerless sand screen or screen attached to pump intake
This production method uses stand alone screen that is connected to pump intake as sand control. It
was intended to limit sand production to surface and increase PCP pump lifetime by limiting sand into
pump assembly and minimize pump stuck due to sand. Although this method limits sand production
to surface, but it did not prevent sand pile to form and eventually production was restricted by sand
pile inside well bore
– PCP production with sand screen set on seal-bore packer
This production method was a modification from the previous sand control. Screen installation
proved effective to prevent sand production to surface. This production method was intended to
restrict sand into pump assembly and restrict the formation of sand pile inside well bore by adding
seal bore packer.

Data & Result

Productivity Index (PI) Analysis
Production performance monitoring without any sand control indicates that the wells in Sesanip field can
deliver a relatively high Productivity Index (PI) above 0.35 bbl/day/psi as shown in fig-4. However within
a short period of time, the wells PI will decrease significantly because of sand production settlement &
plugging in front of the perforation. This will eventually cause PCP pump to stuck when the sand enter PCP
pump. Production with controlled rate, although it can reduce the risk of pump stuck cause by sand without
mechanical sand control, gives a low PI below 0.1 bbl/day/psi but with a high lifetime of 182 days.

st
Figure 4—Sesanip Productivity Index Performance 1 Phase
8 SPE-184188-MS

Screen implementation in 2nd phase as shown in fig-5, contibutes a decrease in Sesanip wells PI. In
average, screen installation decrease PI by 8% compared to the previous PI before screen was installed. The
PI decreases slightly after production. This is caused by sand bridging behind screen. However, in the case
of packerless screen, sand bridging was unable to form. Instead sand continued to settle and pile behind
PCP pump. This caused the PCP pump to stuck after producing 42 days.

nd
Figure 5—Sesanip Productivity Index Performance 2 Phase

Use of screen and packer will limit sand pile above pump, ease the sand to bridge and form arc stability,
and provide sand uniformity behind screen. This production scenario gives a decrease in PI, but the
decremental of PI is lower compared to the 1st phase. PI of screen and packer implementation is stable above
0.2 bbl/day/psi, compared to sudden PI drop to 0 bbl/day/psi without sand control and PI below 0.1 bbl/
day/psi with controlled rate in the 1st phase. Screen with seal-bore packer implementation gives an overall
better production performance.

Optimization Analysis
During the 1st phase as shown in fig-6, each variable speed drive (VSD) parameter such as pump
submergence, torque, and frequency are monitored and recorded but was set to operate independently. The
main goal during this phase was to produce with target rate set at 75% from maximum flow rate (Qmax),
thus setting the VSD frequency at a fix value which has been calculated previously based on volumetric
displacement. In the controlled rate scenario, there is manipulation activity of VSD frequency manually due
to troubleshooting of PCP elastomer wear indication.
SPE-184188-MS 9

st
Figure 6—Sesanip Variable Speed Drive Parameter Performance 1 Phase

During the 2nd phase as shown in fig-7, each of the VSD parameter is dependant one to another. By
setting each parameter dependant to one another, it enables production performance to be controlled. VSD
was set to alter the frequency based on the desired pump submergence condition. In PCP production
with packerless screen scenario, the frequency alterations have been in line with the pump submergence
condition. Production rate and all the VSD parameters were all stable when pump submergence was at
1,000-ft. During early production stage in PCP production with sand screen set on seal-bore packer, VSD
frequency seamed sporadic in order to adjust with the pump submergence. This was suspected caused
by unstable downhole conditions during natural sand packing process behind screen. After a few weeks,
pump submergence and VSD frequency became relatively stable and this event was in line as shown by
PI graphic. Once the sand behind sreen has packed, PI decremental has stablized, pump submergence and
VSD frequency also became stable and starting to form a pattern for further optimization.
10 SPE-184188-MS

nd
Figure 7—Sesanip Variable Speed Drive Parameter Performance 2 Phase

Performance Improvement Analysis

Based on data shown in table-2, producing the well without production restriction or sand control gave a
low lifetime of 15 days due to sand pile and pump stuck. Sand control methods by restricting production
rate and use of mechanical sand control prove to increase production lifetime and lower sand production
rate. By using sand control methods, sand production rate can be reduced from 0.46 bbl/day to as low as
0.002 bbl/day using restricted rate or 0.011 bbl/day using sand screen set on seal-bore packer.

Table 2—Sesanip Sand Production History

Production Sand Control Producing days Findings

Scenario

Phase 1 None PSD set above perforation 15 days – PCP stuck due to sand
Scenario 1 – 54 m sand pile
– 0.46 bbl/day sand rate

Phase 1 None PSD set below perforation 15 days – PCP stuck due to sand
Scenario 2 – 43 m sand pile
– 0.37 bbl/day sand rate

Phase 1 Production controlled rate 182 days – PCP still running low eff
Scenario 3 – Elastomer wear
– 9 m sand pile
– 0.002 bbl/day

Phase 2 PCP production with packerless sand 42 days – PCP stuck due to sand
Scenario 4 screen or screen attached to pump intake – 45 m sand pile
– 0.14 bbl/day sand rate

Phase 2 PCP production with sand screen set on 40 days – PCP stuck due to elastomer wear
Scenario 5 seal-bore packer – 6.5 m sand pile
– 0.014 bbl/day sand rate

PCP production with sand screen set on 56 days – PCP stuck due to elastomer wear
seal-bore packer – 11.5 m sand pile
– 0.011 bbl/day sand rate

PCP production with sand screen set on 212 days – Still producing
seal-bore packer

Taking into account the cumulative production and economic analysis in addition to life time as shown in
table-3, production method phase 1 scenario 3 production controlled rate and phase 2 scenario 5 production
SPE-184188-MS 11

with sand screen set on seal-bore packer gives the best lifetime, cumulative production and lifting cost
per barrel. By implementing these improved scenarios, it is evident in table-4 that shows lifting cost in
producing Sesanip field has decrease to 17.6 USD/bbl in the 3rd year compared to 25.1 USD/bbl in the 1st
year of scenario implementation. Total cost stated in table-3 and table-4 includes operational rental cost
and well service rig cost.

Table 3—Sesanip Scenario Based Economic Analysis

Scenario Lifetime(Days) Cummulative Total Cost(USD) Lifting

Production Cost(USD/bbl)
(MBO)

Phase 1, Scenario 1 15 1.716 45,995 26.8

Phase 1, Scenario 2 15 0.869 34,964 40.2

Phase 1, Scenario 3 182 4.880 88,678 18.2

Phase 2, Scenario 4 42 0.64 33,484 52.3

Phase 2, Scenario 5 40 1.94 52,590 27.1

56 2.864 38,369 13.4

212 3.944 69,308 17.6

Table 4—Sesanip Yearly Economic Analysis

Year Cummulative Yearly Cost Lifting Cost

Production (USD) (USD/bbl)
(MBO)

1st Year 8,105 203,121 25.1

2nd Year 4,804 90,959 18.9

rd
3 Year 3,944 69,308 17.6

Conclusions
Analyzing all the production scenarios, and considering production lifetime, cumulative production, and
economic analysis, it can be concluded that phase 2 scenario 5 PCP production with sand screen set on seal-
bore packer gave the best and most optimum performance. The next plan to further improve the production
scenario 5 is by increasing PI using a larger sizeable, uniform natural sand pack behind sand screen set on
seal-bore packer.

Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank PT. Medco E&P Indonesia, SKK Migas, and Direktorat Jenderal Migas
for their permission to publish this paper. We also acknowledge the valuable contribution and support of
members of Tarakan asset field operation and engineering.

Nomenclature
PCP Progressive Cavity Pump
PI Productivity Index
PSD Pump Setting Depth
VSD Variable Speed Drive
Swc Water Connate Saturation
NTT No Turn Tool
12 SPE-184188-MS

RPM Rotation per Minute

Qmax Maximum Flow Rate
D50 Medium Grain Size at 50% wieght
BBL Barrel
PSI Pound per Square Inch

References
Cole, R. Clay, Ross, Colby. 1997. Petroleum Well Construction, Chap. 18
Engineering toolbox. 2016. Water - Dynamic and Kinematic Viscosity. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-
dynamic-kinematic-viscosity-d_596.html (accessed 11 August 2016)
Weatherford. 2001. PCP System Equipment.
Wikipedia. 2016. Laser Diffraction Analysis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_diffraction_analysis (accessed 11
August 2016)