Continuous Rod and Insert Progressing Cavity

Pumps
A Synergic Combination for Operational Efficiency
SPE - Applied Technology Workshop – Cancun, March 2010

Authors: Esteban Oliva and Stefan Diaconu

Introduction
Insert PCP

Synergic
Combination
Flushby w/
COROD® Continuous Rod
Injector

Reduction of Increase in Reduction of

down time rod and tubing life service cost
Insertable PC Pumps: History
• Several manufactures have designed and run insertable
PC pumps in the past
• Used in a variety of different applications
• Most common problems encountered:
– Inserts designed with bottom sealing assemblies were
susceptible to sanding in
– Not all pump assemblies were flushable, significantly
reducing run times in sandy, heavy oil applications
– Service personnel were not properly educated in the
operation and maintenance of these new style PC
pumps
– A set distance between the seating and no turn
components of the assemblies reduced system
interchangeability
Insertable PC Pumps – Arrowhead Design

• Compact and Flushable

• Pickup/no go is between the “arrowhead” on the

bottom of the rotor and a floating ring near the top of
the insert assembly
• The ability to pick up the insert from the bottom of the
rotor allows for flushing while maintaining a shorter
insert pump assembly
– The distance between the top of the stator and the pickup point
only needs to be 1 meter
– This allows the rotor to be completely removed from the stator
into a flush position without unseating the pump from the PSN

• The length savings can be used to add more volume

or lift to an insert assembly within its restricted
operating envelope
Insertable PC Pumps – Arrowhead Design

• Animation shows:
– Installation
– Seating (seating mandrel in PSN)
– Space out (landing of the rotor)
– Operation
– Servicing (flush-by position)
– Removal (arrowhead pickup on floating ring)
Insert vs. Conventional PC Pump Components

Component Tubular PCP Insert PCP

Stator

Rotor

Tag bar

Pump Seating Nipple

Seating Mandrel w/seating rings and

floating ring
Arrowhead

Torque Stopper

Relative Cost 5% to 15%

higher
Economical Comparisons
• Insert vs. equal production rated PCP tubular system
– New installation (CAPEX): 5% to 25% higher cost (depending on pump
model and tubing size)
– Pump change (OPEX): 71% lower cost
– Rig type and time: only flushbys or COROD units pull the rods
– No need to pull the tubing string
450

400

200

350

300
150

Acummulated Cost
Relative Cost

250 Insert
tubular
Insert
200 tubular
100

150

100
50

50
1st install 1st pump 2nd pump 3rd pump
change change change

0 0
0 18 36 54
Months
Benefits of Using Insertable PC Pumps

• Reduce workover time and cost

– After initial installation, during a workover you only pull the rod
string, not tubing string
• No service rig required
– On tight workover schedules, diferred production is reduced by
using lighter/faster Flush-by units or COROD units
Destinations of Insertable PC Pumps
• Common Destinations
– USA
– Canada
– Venezuela
– Angola
Continuous Rod: A Viable Solution
• Over 44 years of manufacturing,
applications and service history
• Superior alternative to conventional
sucker rods
– Only 2 connections at the top and
bottom of the rod string
• Increases run life of tubing and rods
• Increases efficiency of artificial lift
systems

COROD
• Lowers torque and power requirements
• Used in all types of rod-driven
® applications (PCP / RRP) and wells:

Continuous Rod & Flushbys – Deviated, directional, horizontal,

Cyclic Steam, SAGD, oil,
dewatering gas wells (including
CBM/CSG), shallow and deep
holes
Continuous Rod: Benefits
1. Fewer Threaded Connections
– Most common sucker rod failures are pin-related, due to fatigue
and improper joint make-up R
o
d

Continuous rod

Sucker Rod w/ Guides

2. Reduced Contact Loading
Sucker Rod
– Concentrated contact load areas lead to severe
Tubing
tubing/rod wear + increase of required torque
– Under identical conditions, the distributed contact
load with Continuous Rod compared to
conventional sucker rods is 50 to 75 times less

Uniform Load Distribution

Severe Wear Areas
Continuous Rod: Benefits
3. Larger Annular Space
– Minimizes pressure losses 1'’ Slim Hole
1'’
VS. CONT.
Coupling
ROD
• Large portions of tubing pressure
losses are associated with the
couplings, centralizers and rod guides

2 7/8” Tubing
(Cross-sectional view)

4. Reduced Contact Torque

– Minimizes the require torque at drive
head
• The contact torque is associated
with contact load and rod diameter
Continuous Rod: Versatile Services
• Continuous rod is serviced by state-of the-art equipment
– Lowers service costs, especially with insert pumps, when no workover
unit is necessary to handle tubing

Quick mobilization

Fast deployment

Highly automated

Adaptable with other

service equipment

Customizable to meet
specific country regulations

Time Saving
+
Cost Saving
Flushby vs. Workover Operating Time
• A study was done on multiple oil wells of an average depth of 3000 ft,
located in a field in South America
• Purpose: to compare the performance of a Flushby relative to a
service workover rig
– Same applications, same environment
– Mobilization to rig down time
• Operations:
– Insert Pump change
– Polished Rod change (Beam)
– Polished Rod change (PCP)
– Rod Fishing
Study Results
25
23

20
18
17 Substantially lower
16 16
operating times
15

11
10
6.5
5.5
5

0
Insert Pump Change Polish Rod Change (Beam) Polish Rod Change (PCP) Rod Fishing

Flushby Job Time/Hr. Workover Job Time/Hr.

Time savings of
7 HOURS
PCP & Continuous Rod: High Deviated Wells
• Rocky Mountain District, Alberta, Canada
– Production history going back to the 1960’s
– High volume crooked holes
– Frequent parted rod and tubing failures
• A study was done on 22 wells with the highest number of parted rods
and tubing failures, which were selected for completion with
continuous sucker rods
• Purpose: to compare the failure rate of continuous sucker rods vs.
conventional sucker rods, and to calculate the money saved using
continuous sucker rod
Study Results
Conclusions:
• In the previous 3 years, these 22 wells 10

had 31 rod parts and 57 holes in tubing 9

using conventional rods with guides.
8
This represented a failure rate of 9.5
7
rod-tubing failures/100 well/month
6
• After continuous rod installation, the
5
failure rate decreased to 3.4 rod-tubing
failures/100 wells/month 4

3
• Using continuous rod, $360,000/year
2
was saved. This was due to reducing
the number of failures, and eliminating 1

the cost of replacing guides 0

Number of failures / 100 wells/month

Continuous sucker rod Conventional sucker rod

PCP & Continuous Rod: Decrease Downtime
• Tolima, Columbia
– PCP applications
– S-shape deviated wells, 3000ft MD
– Frequent failures of conventional sucker rod w/guides
• A study was done on 14 deviated wells (Out of 34) completed with
continuous rods in the area
• Purpose: to compare downtime reduction using continuous rods vs.
conventional rods in wells completed with PCP
Study Results
Average Time Between Failures
Conventional Sucker Rods vs. Continuous Rods

Substantially better results

with continuous rod
PCP & Continuous Rod: USA Operations
• The Problem
– “S” shaped wells
• High rod-tubing contact forces
– Long pump change rig times
• The Solution, for approximately 40 wells:
– COROD
• Reduced rod-tubing contact forces
• Lighter rig with faster operation time and lower hourly rate
– Insert PCP
• Ran on the rod string and saved rig time
– No need to pull tubing
Conclusion
Insert PCP

Synergic
Combination
Flushby w/
COROD® Continuous Rod
Injector

Reduction of Increase in Reduction of

down time rod and tubing life service cost