SPE 120889

Feasibility Study of Dual “Backup” Electrical Submersible Pump Based on

Risk Analysis
Aileen Pérez, Sergio Caicedo PDVSA-Intevep

Copyright 2009, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2009 SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Cartagena, Colombia, 31 May–3 June 2009.

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
Electric Submersible Pumping is one of the predominant lift methods used in Barua-Motatán field of Tomoporo district,
Venezuela. Each year the increasing number of ESP failures has become in a crucial issue for the Venezuelan oil company
(Petróleos de Venezuela - PDVSA) due to the adversely effecting on lifting costs, rig utility and production. A dual ESP
(dESP) completion in which the second pump is used as a backup is proposed in this study as an alternative for optimizing
production, increasing ESP run life, reducing unscheduled deferments and minimizing ESP related well services and
associated costs.

A critical techno – economics analysis of different proposal from local ESP vendors showed that the suitable option due to
space restrictions (casing 7-5/8 in.) is a pod type completion in which primary and backup ESPs are in serial. A risk
assessment confirmed the feasibility of the application of dESP in Tomoporo district. The Net Present Value (NPV) of using
the new scheme completion proposed is always greater that the conventional single ESP scheme. The high initial capital
expenditure incurred from the use of the technology is offset by the significant increase in the profit margin related to the
decrease in operational cost and steady production. The most important and unexpected achievement was that probabilities of
having negative NPV are reduced considerably with dESP as could be confirmed by risk analysis. Finally, dESP application
simplifies drilling scheduling which enhances the planning of well interventions.

Introduction
One of the mayor objectives of “PDVSA”, the Venezuelan state Oil Company, is to develop and increase the production of
Tomoporo district (located in the Trujillo state of Venezuela). In order to achieve this goal, PDVSA has been implementing
Elecrical Sumersible Pumps (ESPs) as an alternative to handle high production volumes. With this purpose, Caicedo et al [1],
carried out a study in this oil field to evaluate the technical methods. In this study was identified that there are many
opportunities of increasing production and reduce the gas compressor dependence. However, even though there is an increase
in production, it is a major concern that the number of workovers required to replace failed pumps would reduce production
efficiency and increase the operating costs of the field. Furthermore, the impact of these facts would be significantly higher
when considering lost revenue from deferred oil production while scheduling a workover. To mitigate the effects of pump
failure, a dESP system is considered and recommended for the development. In this case, an independent backup pump is
justified due to the frequent ESP failures that have been observed in some wells. It is expected that the dual system would
allow the longest period of uninterrupted production from the reservoir.

Clearly a dESP completion is more complex and expensive than a single completion, and the costs are slightly greater than
two single ESP. So a detailed study must be done to justify this investment. The study should include the completion design
for each pump based on nodal analysis, the details events to be solved and economical analysis using Monte Carlo approach.

This study will be focusing on a feasibility study of the first application of dual “Backup” ESP in one well of the Tomoporo
field, based on a technical as well as an economical analysis in order to evaluate the feasibility of installing dESP system in
Tomoporo field.
2 SPE 120889

Case Study: Description of Tomoporo field.

Tomoporo district is operated by PDVSA's western E&P division. The productive areas is considered one of the biggest light
oil reserves in Venezuela´s western area. The district is comprised by three Exploitation Units (E.U): Barua-Motatán, Ceuta y
Moporo. This study will be focus on Barua-Motatán E.U. since it has a considerable number and frequency of failed ESP
wells.

Barua-Motatán is the oldest E.U being discovered in 1952. The development drilling began during 1938, however its first
production started in 1952. Currently, Barua area has eight (8) active while that Motatán area has ten (10) active reservoir of
oil of 20 – 23 ◦API.

The productions formations are A-9/A-10 belong to Paují reservoir and the upper B formation belongs to Misoa reservoir of
Eocene age. The reservoir exploitation, however, is limited due to low pressure and permeability and the high water
production interbedded with pressurized lutite.

Well description
The selection of the well was carried out after analyzing the data base provided by the field engineers. All equipped ESP
wells with an intervention rate per year higher than 2 were considered. However, even though there were found many wells
that met this condition, most of them did not fulfill the mechanical conditions (min 7-in production casing) required for
DESP.

Mechanical Completion
The well selected belongs to the reservoir Paují. It was completed in 1997 with dual artificial lift system ESP and gas lift in
the pay zones Paují A-9/10.

The completion is discussed from top to bottom. A 7-5/8 in. casing is set above the pay zones and a 5-1/2 in. liner is set
through the pay (see figure 1). The production tubing of 3-1/2 in. includes three gas mandrel located at different depth.

Should be highlighted that this gas lift completion is not common, because there is not packer below the last mandrel, but due
to the flowing pressure is high enough to create a fluid level acting as a packer which assures the gas injection comes into the
tubing (deepest) valve through the operating. Besides the gas lift acts as backup system and not as a booster system.

The ESP assembly is mainly composed by a 210-TE-1500 pump with an O.D of about 5.38-in., a motor 500 series standard
with an O.D of 6-5/8 in. The completion also includes an unidentified device at 13190ft of depth. There is presumed that it
could be cable protector.

Figure 1. Completion diagram of well A

SPE 120889 3

Well history

The well has reported many workovers runs during its production history, mainly owing to switch from ESP to the backup
Gas lift and vice versa, once the ESP has been replaced. As a result, a considerable decreased of production has been
observed from 2002 onward.

During the period 1999 to 2002 eight (8) ESP pump have been installed in the well. The longer ESP run life has been 321
days. The main failures modes in the well were electrical (62%) and mechanical (38%). The descriptions of these were
failures at the motor lead and broken shaft.

Production history

The maximum oil production (almost 2000Bbls/d) was achieved in 1997. Since then, a downward slope has been observed,
as well as several lower picks related to failures in ESP system and the subsequently workover. From February 2002 to the
present, the production has been stabilized around 200Bbls/d which is 10% of its original value which mean a 90% of
depletion in 10 years. It is illustrates in the figure 2.

The figure 3 shows the deferred oil production from the well due to ESP failures. Note that the accumulative value from 1999
to 2002 is 252,298 Bbls/d. There is clear that an investment (associated to the dESP system) that could minimize this figures
as well as the operational cost, should be considered worthily.

2000

1800

1600

1400
production BPD

Decrease of production
1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0
02

07
6

98

04

08

09
/9

/9

/9

/9

/0

/0

/0

/0

/0

/0

/0
2/

1/
1/

8/

9/

7/
/5

/3

10

/5

/3
11

/8

/6

/4

/2

/1
/1
5/

/1
1/

9/

6/
15

11

28

23

19

13

28

24

18
1/

6/
10

14

Date

Figure 2. Oil production profile of Well A

400000

350000 accumulate (Bbls/d)

Bbls/d
300000
production (Bbls/d)

250000

200000

150000

100000

50000

0
1999 2000 2001 2002
Year

Figure 3. Deferred Oil production profile from the Well

4 SPE 120889

Design
The parameters and criteria considered for obtaining the preliminary design from the program SubPUMP®8.5 which will be
as base for establishing the initial dialogue after which an agreed ESP design was finalized with the ESP local suppliers is
presented.

ESP design parameters and Criteria

The ESP system was specified to meet the following requirements:

• Flowrate: The target production was 380 Bbls/d.

• Pressure and Temperature: A tubing head pressure (THP) and casing pressure of 100 psi is required in Barua-Motatán field.
The Botton Hole Temperature (BHT) is 250◦F.
• Fluid: According to the well history the produce GOR is 300scf/Bbls and a 3% of water cut.
• Separation between ESPs: According to Pradie, et al [2], 20m of distance between the ESPs was considered. It is to: allow
for the tubing to deflect and compensate for eccentricity between the two systems; and to minimize the bending effect of the
lower system on the upper system.
• Manufacture: The base design was done just for Schlumberger. There is justified due to the fact that this is the only
manufacturer in the simulation program used allowing to:

- Select a motor seal type

- Calculate the bearing capacity for the pump housing. This is done for Reda (Standard, tilt-pad and high load
bearings).
- Heat rise calculations are available just for Reda motor.
- Variable Reda Motors calculations are available just for certain Reda motors.

The design criterion considered was to determine the pump intake conditions in order to achieve the design flowrate at the
pump depth given.

In order to optimize the design and estimated the reservoir condition for sizing the second pump once the first have already
failed (after completing its expected life of 324 days), the selected ESP was evaluated for future well deliverability scenarios.

6500

6000

5500
Reservoir pressure (psi)

5000

4500
Year 1 Year 2
4000
2009 2010

3500

3000
Actual Condition
2500
Pres =1800 psi

2000 Bubble Point

Pres =1480psi
1500

1000
00

00
50

50
0

0
00

50

00
00

00

50

00

50

00

50

50

50
0
0
25

50

75
10

12

15

17

20

25

30

35

37

40

42

45

47
22

27

32

time (days)

Figure 4. Reservoir depletion

The future reservoir pressure conditions were roughly estimated by carrying out a material balance reservoir model. The
figure 4 illustrates the reservoir pressure profile. Note that this pressure is always greater than the bubble point pressure up
to two year from the actual date which is much more that the expected ESP life in the field.

Taking into account the figures revealed in the material balance model, the table 1 summarizes the scenarios considered for
the simulation. It is important to keep in mind that PI variation was done assuring a minimum fluid over the pump of 200 ft.
SPE 120889 5

Table 1. Sensitivity scenarios studied in Well A

CASE 1 CASE 2 CASE 3 CASE 4

Pres (psi) 1800 1700 1600 1500
PI (Bbls/d/psi) 0.68 0.61 0.55 0.50
FBHP test (psi) 1532 1500 1500 1432
Qtest (Bbls) 183 122.84 55.24 33.51

ESP assembly and sizing

The preliminary design obtained from SubPUMP®8.5 is presented in which specifications, size and performance analysis of
the ESP assembly under different operation conditions are shown in the following figures.

The plot below illustrates the inflow and outflow curve (or well system curve) at the pump depth. There can be seen how the
head relates to the inflow (pump intake) pressure and outflow (pump discharge) pressure at the total flowrate at different
reservoir pressure and considering the systematically reduction in the PI index. The TDH required by the pump in all cases is
the difference in the pump discharge head and the pump intake head. In the worst scenario which considers the reservoir
pressure close to the bubble point pressure (Pres = 1500psi) and the lowest PI (0. 5 Bbl/d/psi) the TDH is 11690.5 ft.

5000
4750
4500
4250
4000
Inflow @ Perfs, Pres = 1800psi
3750 Outflow Curve, Pres = 1800psi
3500 Inflow @ Pump, Pres = 1700psi
3250 Outflow Curve, Pres = 1700psi
pressure (psi)

3000 Inflow @ Pump, Pres = 1600psi

2750 Outflow Curve, Pres = 1600psi
2500 Inflow @ Pump, Pres = 1500psi
Outflow Curve, Pres = 1500psi
2250
2000
1750
1500
1250
1000
750
500
250
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Q (Bbl/d)

Figure 5. Well and system performance

The performance of the selected pump (series 400, O.D 4 in.) is shown in the graph 6. There can be seen that the pump
capacity (pump curve) at different frequency meets the pump requirements (well system curve). Regarding to this, it assures
that the well system curve operates properly at the different frequencies as long as the well system curve is inside the
operating envelope where the pump should operate at the different frequencies.

25000
Min-Max Optimum Rate
Well System Curve Pres = 1500psi
Well System Curve, Pres = 1600psi
20000
Well System Curve, Pres= 1700psi
Well System Curve, Pres= 1800psi

15000
TDH, ft

10000

5000

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950
Average pump rate (in situ conditions) Bbl/d

Figure 6. Pump performance

6 SPE 120889

dESP completion options

Two options were proposed by the local suppliers as a new scheme dESP completion for the Well A.
These schemes have been used in wells where intervention costs are extremely high and one unit is started and run until
failure and then is second started. Commonly, runlife target of the second unit is 50% of the primary unit.

Dual pod system

Essentially a pod is a pressure vessel deployed in the tubing string that permits the inclusion of an ESP - Or a fat spot in the
pipe. The main purpose is to isolate formation fluid from the upper annulus and direct flow into the intake of the pump.

Principal Advantages

- Allows for larger ESP units to be installed in narrow casing than with Dual Y-Tool Systems.
- Eliminates the need for a dual string packer to provide well control.
- Space out during landing is simplified
- Lower fluid friction compared to a Y-Tool and Bypass
- Can be used in conjunction with Isolation Valves to prevent formation damage from kill fluids during workovers.
- Protects the equipment during deployment
- Weight limitations are a function of the production string not the Bypass Tubing

Dual Y- tool System

This scheme completion has been used as a booster system in order to produce different zones. One of the major advantages
in comparison with the Pod system are:

Principal Advantages

- Y-tool configuration allows for access to the well bore

- Wide range of tools, plugs and intervention equipment available
- Established Technology

The redundant pump strategy in both schemes is intended to reduce deferred production as well as the overall number of
workovers over the life of a well, and therefore cost. Furthermore, rigs can be scheduled in advance while the well is still
producing

Based on the technical advantages and space restrictions (narrow casing) of the Well A, there was considered as a final
completion option for this case study the dual pod system.

Economical model and analysis

The strategy of evaluation is mainly based on estimating the NPV in which a sensitivity analysis of dESP system reliability,
oil price, discount rate and Operating Expenditure (OPEX) and their effects in the dESP well economics is evaluate under
static conditions. This strategy compares the extra costs due to a more frequent workover in single ESP equipped well with
that of a dESP, and evaluates the NPV for theses cases. If the dual ESP benefit is higher than the extra single ESP workover
cost at the dESP economic limit, the new completion proposed in this study is economically feasible in the well.

A dESP economic evaluation requires to take into account all cost associated with the technology. The total expenditure of
the dESP system includes the cost of the downhole ESP system, accessories, and connections and the workover which
represents the cost of installing.

( Income i − Outcome i )
NPV = ∑ − CAPEX
(1 + β ) i (1)

The model considered to carry out the economical analysis required to calculate the NPV for achieving this, a cash flow must
be established with a pre-established discount rate (β). The daily income and outcome are the oil production multiplied by the
oil price and production cost per barrel respectively. The critical detail in equation 2 is the number of days or time horizon
since the run-life cannot be fixed because is a random unknown variable. So by doing some simplifications an analytical
expression can be obtained.
SPE 120889 7

Ndays
(Oilpricei − Costi ) * Qoili (2)
NPV = ∑
i =0 (1 + β ) i
− CAPEX

Considering that the run-life is so short in this study, then the oil price and the cost can be assumed constants, besides in this
way the results will focus on the run-life and avoids the problem of predicting the future oil price. Production forecasting is
included by introducing depletion (α) together with an initial production estimation (Qoilinitial) given by the nodal analysis
(fig.6).
Ndays
Qoilinitial * (1 − α ) i
NPV = (Oilprice− Cost) * ∑ (1 + β ) i
− CAPEX
i =0
(3)

Taking out the initial oil production from the sum and using the following identity

N
1 − X N +1
∑X
i =0
i
=
1− X
(4)

Finally an analytical simple equation that considers production depletion to evaluate the NPV as a function of the run-life is
obtained

Ndays +1
⎡1 − α ⎤
1 −⎢ ⎥
NPV = (Oilprice − Cost ) * Qoil initial ⎣1 + β ⎦ − CAPEX
(5)
⎡1 − α ⎤
1− ⎢ ⎥
⎣1 + β ⎦

Where:
1
α = 1 − (1 − α annual ) 365 (6)

1
β = (1 + β annual ) 365 − 1 (7)

By considering the values shows in the table 2, the NPV was estimated for both scenarios (single and dual ESP completion).

Table 2. Parameters considered for economical evaluation

CAPEX
1ESP (new ) 550,000 US $

OPEX
production costs 4 US $/ bbls

VARIABLE
Oil price 100 US $/bbls
Oil production 380 Bbls/day
Discount rate 15.00%

This is important to highlight that even though in this case study the potential (well production) is low, there can be seen that
the payout time is less than a year of production and the NPV for sESP (9.3 MM US$) is always lower that for dESP (14.4
MM US$).

Regarding to this, even thought the initial Capital Expenditure CAPEX increase, costs saving can be achieved by using
dESPs due to the associated steady oil production, and a reduction in OPEX associated with the workover’s frequency and
costs of pump’s replacement. The results revealed that the cost effectiveness of the implementation of dESP depends mainly
on its monthly savings and its ability to remain in long enough in service in order to pay back its costs. All this confirms that
the economics scenario is optimum for its implementation.
8 SPE 120889

Risk Assessment
A careful assessment of all aspects of the field – development plan must be carried out to any field new project. Some Tech –
economics indicators for screening and ranking the options were described in the previous sections, nevertheless these were
apply a static set of conditions.

In this section, a risk assessment analysis is presented which could help quantifying and managing uncertainty in order to
confirm the optimal decision-making for the design. This also includes the risk quantification based on the uncertainty of
critical input parameters through a sensitivity analysis in which different scenarios are analyzed.

The process is mainly composed by three steps:

• Risk identification.
• Quantitative decision analysis.
• Presentation of the risk and rewards for each scenario (NPV) in terms of cumulative probability distributions plots.

There is a high degree of risk and uncertainty inherent in the decision making process, these are mainly associated with:
• Limitations in the accuracy and representativeness of field data, such as: fluid properties and expected oil production.
• The average run ESP life in the proposed well.
• Uncertainties in the prediction of the potential degree of scale formation. This therefore introduces considerable risk when
minimal downhole water samples are available.
• Bad operational procedures or low operators experience.
• The potential risk associated with new technologies. Some assumptions or operational philosophy are based on previous
field experiences. In this way, the risk of failure and the impact this may have on production due to this is the first
application in Venezuela.

Once risks have been identified, these are assessed as to their potential severity of loss and to the probability of occurrence.
Quantitative risk assessment was carried out by carrying out Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) in which a sensitivity analysis
of the main drivers that could affect the dESP well economics was considered.

Basically, this process consists of treating uncertain input parameters of the economical model given by the equation 3 as
stochastic variables with a Probability Distribution Function (PDF) defined. All valid combinations of these input parameters
are tried, to simulate all possible outcomes.
The process is repeated with fresh sets of values of the input parameters, up to the number of iterations specified. The
program saves the values obtained at each iteration for each output cell and consolidates them in the form of an output
probability distribution for the cell.
The result of the simulation process is the NPV and ESP run life at any time obtained as a probability distribution which is
graphed as a Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) curve.

The results obtained from MCS are illustrates in the figures 7-9, for dual and single ESP (NVP1 and NPV2 respectively) and
expected run life. These scenarios reveal different outcome in each case. This is related to the fact that the NPV2 is a function
of two ESP (dESP) run-life in which each pump has a independent run life that are given for different PDF.

1.0

0.8
Backup ESP
Single ESP
0 profit limit
0.6
1-F

0.4

0.2

0.0
-2.0E+06

0.0E+00

2.0E+06

4.0E+06

6.0E+06

8.0E+06

1.0E+07

1.2E+07

1.4E+07

1.6E+07

1.8E+07

2.0E+07

2.2E+07

2.4E+07

2.6E+07

2.8E+07

3.0E+07

VPN (US$)

Figure 7. CDF of NPV (US$)

SPE 120889 9

A very interesting observation concerns with the histogram or probability density (PDF) function for a dESP system which
shows different shape than the sESP case (fig 8). The sESP shows a PDF with exponential shape, meanwhile de dESP has a
different PDF type as expected by the Gauss’s central limit theorem. The bigger the number the ESP backup’s the closer to a
normal or Gauss distribution. In other words the dESP system failure rate behavior cannot be simulated by using an
exponential PDF with a double run-life of a sESP.

NVP2

NVP1

Figure 8. Results obtained from Crystal Ball for Single and Dual ESP

The probability that NPV will be positive in dESP case is 90.3 % which is higher than the sESP case of 77.62%. There can
be seen that the mean for single and dual ESP is 1,67 MM US$ and 3,19 MM US$ respectively. Furthermore, in dESP has a
probability of around 86% having a NPV between 16,000 M US$ - 10 MM US$ while that in the case of sESP a probability
of 72% of having a NPV between 16,000 M US$ - 6.2 MM US$ is shown.

1
0.9
Backup ESP
0.8
0.7
Single ESP
0.6
1 -F

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Average run life (days)

Figure 9. Average run life

On the other hand, the increase in the expected dESP runlife in comparison with sESP can be translated in a decrease in
deferred production.These results confirm the economical feasibility of using dESP in the Well allocated in the Barua-
Motatán field of Tomoporo district.
10 SPE 120889

Conclusions and Recommendations

• The analysis carried out in this project showed that dESP or similar techniques applied on Tomoporo`s wells could
significantly improve field production performance and wells profitability by minimizing downtime and delaying
workovers to optimize cost without impacting well availability.

• In wells with space restrictions (narrow casing), the pod configuration presents additional advantages in comparison with
Y-Tool as a dual backup system.

• Use of dESPs enhances the planning of well interventions not only for the longer run life but also for the specific well
statistics.

• The operational procedures of the well will be a key factor to ensure an acceptable runtime. It is highly recommended that
the well should be monitored carefully.

• The completion procedure must assure formation integrity (no damage) in order to keep the same inflow performance at
which the design was done.

• It is mandatory to create and store failure ESP data in order to tune it up the MCS needed for forecasting risk analysis.

Nomenclature
CAPEX= Capital investment, US $.
CDF = Cumulative Distribution Function
Cost=Production Cost, US$/bbl
dESP = Dual Electric Submersible Pump
ESP = Electric Submersible Pump
FBHP Flowing Bottom Hole Pressure, psi
MCS = Monte Carlos Simulation
NPV = Net Present Value, US $.
Oilprice = Oil market price, US$/bbl
PI = Productivity Index, Bbls/d/psi
Pres = Reservoir Pressure, psi
Qoilinitial = Initial rate estimation, Bbls/d
sESP = Single Electric Submersible Pump
TDH = Total Dynamic Head
THP = tubing head pressure, psi
CHP = casing head pressure, psi
BHT = Bottom Hole Temperature, F
α = Daily depletion, dimensionless.
β = Daily discount rate, dimensionless.

References
1. Caicedo et al., 2007. Diseño y Simulación de pozos en BES en el Distrito Tomoporo. PDVSA Intevep, INT-11516, pp. 15 –82.
2. Davies et al., 2006. Analysis of possible applications of Dual ESPs- A reservoir engineering Perspective. Society of Petroleum
Engineers, 99878, pp 1-9.
3. Duffy et al., 2004. First Dual ESP at Wytch Farm. Gulf Coast Section Electric Submersible Pump Workshop.
4. Gann et al., 2007. Dual ESP completions solved West Africa deferred production. Offshore magazine, vol. 67, no. 100, pp 1-3.
5. Horn et al,. 2003. Otter A Challenging Marginal Oil Field Development. Society of Petroleum Engineer Drilling and Completions,
83975, pp 52 - 60.
6. Ireland et al., 2005, Redundant ESP System in 7 in. casing: Optimizing production by extending. ESP run life in marginal offshore oil
wells. Society of Petroleum Enginee Gulf Coast - Electric Submersible Pump Workshop, pp 1- 7.
7. Main et al., 1998. Technology developments in Pancanadian´s Cohasset project. Society of Petroleum Engineers Gulf Coast - Electric
Submersible Pump Workshop, Pump Round table, pp 1-11.
8. Patterson, M.M., 1993, A model for Estimating the life of Electrical Submersible Pump, Society of Petroleum Engineers - Production
& Facilities, 22790, pp 1-12.
9. Pradie et al., 2006 Experiences Gained With the Application of Dual ESP System with Y Tool in Qatar. Middle East Artificial Lift
Forum “MEALF”, 99878.