SPE 141984

A New Productivity Index Formula for ESP-Lifted Wells

Abdallah Al Gahtani, SPE, King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia

Copyright 2011, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference held in Manama, Bahrain, 25–28 September 2011.

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
The productivity index, PI has been used as a measure of the potential of wells to flow at certain formation pressure drawdown.
Additionally, it is used to measure formation damage and formation potential to flow capacity.
In ESP-lifted wells, the pressure is boosted by the added number of pump stages. Hence, pump curves are used to describe the
outflow performance of such wells. These curves, however, were generated at test bench using water which is a single phase.
Because of this, a large error in estimating the performance of oil wells as multiphase flow is pumped through. Additionally, the
rate of degradation of pump performance as multiphase flow is pumped is not fully understood in different pump stage design.
Moreover, these pump curves are used by ESP design software’s which are commercial with limited licensing.
This paper presents a new analytical solution for precisely calculating the productivity index of ESP-lifted wells by which classical
pressure traverse calculation can be made using conventional Nodal analysis software. In addition, the approach yields more
accurate calculations as it can be calibrated and it eliminates the compounded error in calculation by using pump curves. This
method relies on augmenting the effect of pump stages into the induced pressure changes part of the formula.

BACKGROUND

A- ELECTRIC SUBMERSIBLE PUMPS

The Electrical Submersible Pumping (ESP) has been used widely in oil fields. The first submersible pumping unit was installed in
an oil well in 1928 and since that time the concept has proven itself throughout the oil producing world. The ESP is considered to
be an effective and economical method for lifting large volumes of fluids from great depths under a variety of well conditions,
including high viscosity fluids but more attractive artificial lift technique in reservoirs having high water-cut and low gas-oil ratio.

A submersible pumping unit consists of an electric motor, a seal section, an intake section, a multistage centrifugal pump where
each stage consists of a rotating impeller and a stationary diffuser, an electric cable, a surface installed switchboard, a junction box
and transformers. Downhole sensors are run with ESP system to provide various measurements of pressure, temperature and
vibration. In some cases, a centrifugal separator will be placed between the pump and motor for obtaining maximum gas-liquid
separation. A typical submersible pump installation is given in schematic 1. The ESP stage that consists of a rotating impeller and
a stationary diffuser is shown in schematic 2.

An ESP lifts wellbore liquid and decrease the flowing bottomhole pressure. A schematic of a well equipped with a submersible
pump is given in schematic 3, along with the pressure traverse in the well. From the figure it can be seen that, initially, flowing
pressure of submersible pump lifted well is not sufficient to lift the fluid (depleted well) or increasing water ration in the
production string.

Continuous monitoring of ESP system is meant to prolong its life. Under normal operating conditions, submersible pumping unit
can be expected to give from 1 to 3 years of good operating life with some units operating over 10 years.
2 SPE 141984

B- ESP performance
Submersible pumps are multi-staged centrifugal pumps that are dynamic devices which use kinetic energy to increase liquid
pressure. The centrifugal pump uses the fluid velocity to produce the energy to lift the fluid column. The equations that govern the
device relate the produced head to the flow, geometry, and rotational speed. The density of the fluid does not affect the head
produced. This means that a centrifugal pump will produce the same head regardless of the density of the fluid. Simply put, a
pump that can lift water 1000’ could also lift 1000’ of oil at the same flow rate. The difference is that the required pressure for
water is 2,600 Psi versus 3 Psi for air.

An ESP is characterized by performance curves, which include the head developed, brake horsepower consumption and efficiency
as function of the flow rate through the pump for a certain rotational speed (see Fig 1). These curves are for a fixed power cycle –
normally 50 or 60 cycle – and can be changed with variable frequency controllers. Traditionally these curves are determined
experimentally using water.

The pump must be considered as a series of individual stages (or individual pumps). In many cases, each pump stage compresses
the produced fluids and passes a different volume (although same mass) of fluid to the next higher stage. This result in different
head, break horsepower, and efficiency ratings for each stage of the pump. In addition, it is crucial to analyze pump performance
based on a known condition. Experience has shown that each serialized pump demonstrates unique performance data. Therefore, a
factory pump test should be obtained before the pump is installed in a well. The data from this test can be used throughout the
equipment life for accurate performance analysis.

ESP sizing

The head characteristic curve is used to size the pump, while the brake horsepower information is useful to size the motor required
to drive the pump. The sizing of a multi-stage ESP for water wells is fairly simple, and good accuracy of the predicted
performance is achieved using the water performance information supplied by the manufacturer. The design of an ESP system
using the water information for oil wells with high free gas fraction at pump intake conditions is a harder task, and is based on the
prediction of performance curves by modification of the water curves. The leading parameter is the mixture density at the flow
conditions of each stage. Applying this procedure, the ESP system often shows some degree of under or over sizing when
operating. An accurate prediction of the performance for any pump handling free gas is challenging. Some empirical and
mechanistic approaches have been attempted in the past. The main problem of the experimental approach is that the developed
correlations are based on the average performance of the pump. These correlations become specific for the type and number of
stages tested. On the other hand, theoretical models are difficult to develop since the geometry of the channels inside the pump is
complex. The phenomena that take place in such channels are not well understood, and thus the use of empirical parameters to
close the model is required.

The head (in feet per stage) developed by a centrifugal pump is the same regardless of the type or specific gravity of the fluid
pumped. But when converting this head to pressure, it must be multiplied by the gradient of the fluid in question. Therefore, the
following can be stated:

Pressure developed by pump = head per stage × gradient of fluid ×number of stages
Or
⎛ 62 . 4 ⎞
∆ PESP = h s × ⎜ × γ fluid × N s ⎟
⎝ 144 ⎠

The pressure at pump intake is defined as intake pressure starts to increase at pump setting depth by required pump stages and
finally reaches to discharge pressure generated by the pump which will assist fluid to flow throughout the surface. Figure 2 is a
typical pressure traverses for pump on bottom. Pressure at the discharge of the pump is defined as discharge pressure, and also at
intake is defined as intake pressure throughout the study. From the figure, the effective lift point is that depth at which the flowing
bottomhole pressure is capable of supporting the fluids in the tubing string.

C- ESP-lift Design

The objective of ESP lift design is to determine an ESP system with a liquid-producing capacity that matches the inflow rate to an
oil well. Because the mechanical design of the lifting equipment uses a probable liquid rate, the designer needs a precise estimate
SPE 141984 3

on the inflow rate attainable from a well, which require prior knowledge of the flow capacity of the formation typically referred to
as productivity index of the formation and denoted, J.

Design inaccuracies or improperly assumed well rates can result in a mismatch of the design and actual produced liquid volumes.
Electric submersible pump installations do not tolerate design inaccuracies because an ESP has a restricted range of pumping rates.
If used outside its recommended liquid rate range, the hydraulic efficiency of the ESP rapidly deteriorates. In addition to the loss
of energy and the consequent decrease in profitability, the ESP system, when operated under such conditions, soon develops
mechanical problems that can lead to a complete system failure.

When designing for a constant production rate, the designer selects a pump type with the desired rate within its recommended
capacity range. Detailed calculations of the required total dynamic head (TDH) determine the number of required pump stages.
TDH is the head required to lift well fluids to the surface at the desired pumping rate. Thus, the designer can plot the head-vs.-
capacity performance curve of the selected pump containing the necessary number of stages based on the performance of one
stage. For an ideal design when one knows all the necessary well and reservoir parameters, the pump will produce approximately
the design liquid rate because it will work against the design TDH. In this case, the head required to overcome all pressure losses
necessary to move well fluids to the separator equals the head available from the pump at the given pumping rate. This perfect
situation, however, is far from being universal. Often inaccuracies or lack of information on well inflow performance cause design
errors, and the well produces at a rate different from the initial design. The problem with the conventional design is that the ESP
installation has a design for a single rate and not for cases with other parameters.

D- Understanding the well’s productivity.

Modeling the reservoir performance, as far as its ability to produce fluid, is something the production engineer must be prepared to
do. Over the years, several techniques have been established to predict reservoir performance. The first variable needed is the
pressure at the bottom of the well, known as the flowing bottomhole pressure or FBHP.
Failure to accurately model the well’s inflow performance behavior will inevitably result in over-sizing or under-sizing the pump.
In the absence of a variable frequency drive for adjusting pump output, this can be disastrous. An oversized pump will “pump the
well off”. Typically, a “pump off” condition will trigger a “current under load” shutdown of the motor. The well will remain
“down” for a predetermined period of time and then start–up again. This behavior is commonly referred to as “cycling”. Since
startups create great strains on motors and pumps, cycling will often lead to premature equipment failure.
Conversely, an undersized pump will fail to achieve optimum production. Once this is detected, the equipment may have to be
replaced. Regardless of whether the equipment is replaced, an undersized pump will significantly reduce the well’s production
rate.

Prior work

Multiphase flow thru ESP

The produced fluid from an oil well usually has more than one phase. It is most common to have three phases, water, oil and gas,
flowing together. The pump performs highest efficiency when pumping liquid only. ESP’s are successful with handling water and
other incompressible fluids ranging from low to medium viscosities but are severely impacted by free gas or highly compressible
fluids. Significant amounts of free gas may be found during hydrocarbons production. ESP can handle free gas along with the
liquid. The consequences of entrained gas on centrifugal pumps depend on the relative amount of gas and liquid present, and vary
from a slight deterioration on performance up to a complete blockage known as “gas locking”. The amount of gas a pump can
handle without the threat of gas-locking has depended on stage designs and sizes. The smaller flow pumps with radial stages have
been known to handle 10% to 15% free gas by volume, whereas the larger flow pumps with mixed flow staging can tolerate 20%
to 25 % free gas by volume. Many ESP applications today are requiring the ability to handle 30% to 50% free gas by volume in the
smaller flow pumps and 40% to 60% free gas by volume in the larger flow pumps.

The manner in which the pump handles gas is not completely understood but has been well documented; however high volumes of
free gas are known to cause inefficient operation. Hence, Two-phase flow behavior prediction of centrifugal pumps is a hard task
due to the complexity involved in modeling multiphase flow inside pump stage. No models are currently available for this purpose.
Some empirical correlations are available in the literature, but they are valid only for the tested pumps in the experimental range
used to develop them. This motivated important research from the petroleum industry focusing on improving the successful
application of ESP as an artificial lift method.
4 SPE 141984

ESP Production Optimization

Despite using best estimates all the necessary well and reservoir parameters, many submersible pump lifted oil and gas wells
produce at rates different than optimum. This fact makes necessary to apply production optimization techniques to wells having
low production rates. Nodal Analysis has been applied to artificial lift method for many years to analyze the performance of the
systems composed of interacting components. It is a process of determining the effect of each component in the production system
on the total system performance. Nodal analysis can solve these problems easily for a system consisting of the well, the tubing, the
ESP, and the surface equipment. Nodal analysis allows for calculation of pump heads for different possible pumping rates and
determination of the liquid rate in the total system. This rate is at the head required to produce well fluids to the separator. The
required head equals the head developed by the ESP.

A practical solution in the field for over-designed ESP systems is installation of a production choke at the wellhead. The choke,
due to the high pressure drop that develops through it, limits the well's liquid rate so that the ESP operates in its recommended
pumping rate range. This solution eliminates the need for running a new ESP with a correct capacity, thereby saving the costs of
the pulling and running operations. At the same time, however, the system's power efficiency decreases considerably due to the
high hydraulic losses across the surface choke.

Motivation for this work

Studies on ESP systems have been focusing on understanding the flow of multiphase flow through the pump stage and on ways of
improve gas handling or on optimizing selection and design for flow assurance using Nodal analysis of well completion with ESP.
no studies have quantified the impact of ESP lift as an added value for formation flow capacity or well productivity enhancement,
or well productivity enhancement. I.e. the equivalent increase in productivity index value in IPR representation shown in fig. 2, or
the inflow performance of an ESP-lifted well will be elevated to an equivalent high value of inflow performance of a non lifted
well and will deliver higher production rate.

Productivity index & Flow Efficiency in ESP-Lifted Wells

Accurate prediction of the production rate of fluids from the reservoir into the wellbore is essential for efficient artificial lift
installation design. In order to design an artificial lift installation, it is often necessary to determine the well's producing rate. The
accuracy of this determination can affect the efficiency of the design. A large number of factors affect the performance of a well.
An understanding of these factors allows the designer to appreciate the need to obtain all available data before his design work
begins.

In pseudo-steady sate radial flow into a well is, the productivity index of the well, J, is
7 .083 × 10 −3 kh …………….…………………………………………………………………….. (1)
J =
⎡ ⎛r ⎞ ⎤
µB ⎢ ln ⎜⎜ e ⎟⎟ − 0 .75 + s ⎥
⎣ ⎝ rw ⎠ ⎦

The new formulations of the productivity index for an ESP-lifted well can be reached in two ways;

Method 1
For ESP-Lifted wells, total pressure change at sand face, to produce the same flow rate (q), is

∆Pwf = ∆PDarcy + ∆Pskin − ∆PESP ………………………………………………………………………………………….. (2)

Where
⎡ ⎛r ⎞ ⎤
qB µ ⎢ ln ⎜⎜ e ⎟⎟ − 0 . 75 ⎥
∆ PDarcy = ⎣ ⎝ rw ⎠ ⎦ ………………………..……………………………………………………………….. (3)
7 . 083 × 10 − 3 kh
SPE 141984 5

qBµ
∆Pskin = s …………………………………...……………………………………………………….. (4)
7.083 × 10 −3

⎛ 62 . 4 ⎞
∆ PESP = h ×⎜ × γ fluid × N ⎟
⎝ 144 ⎠
s s

The head is obtained from pump performance curve, typically presented in a polynomial function as a function of flow rate (q) for
one stage of the pump. Pump Performance Curve is shown in fig. 3.

ESP’s are usually designed to operate at a specific flow rate to keep the pump at its maximum efficiency. The flow rate through the
pump, however, may change by changing wellhead pressure or changing wellbore gradient.

For simplicity, if we assume a small change in flow rate, the pump curve may be presented in a linear form as shown in fig. 4,
where a represents the change in the head as a function of q, and b represents the initial value of head. Then,

h = (aq + b )
s
………………………………………………………………………………….….. (5)

Putting it together, we have:

(
∆ PESP = h s × 0.433 × γ fluid ×Ns ) ………………………………………………………………………………….….. (6)

⎛ 62 . 4 ⎞
∆ PESP = (aq + b ) × ⎜ × γ fluid × N ⎟ ………….…………………………………………………….………….. (7)
⎝ 144 ⎠
s

⎡ ⎛ r ⎞ ⎤
qB µ ⎢ ln ⎜⎜ e ⎟⎟ − 0 . 75 ⎥
qB µ
⎣ ⎝ w ⎠ ( N ) ………………………….………. (8)
r ⎦ +
∆ Pwf = s − (aq + b ) × 0 . 433 × γ ×
7 . 083 × 10 − 3 kh 7 . 083 × 10 −3 f s
kh

Or
⎡ ⎡ ⎛ r ⎞ ⎤ ⎤
⎢ B µ ⎢ ln ⎜⎜ e ⎟⎟ − 0 . 75 + s ⎥ ⎥
∆ Pwf
⎢
= q⎢ ⎣ ⎝ rw ⎠ ⎦ − ⎛⎜ a B b ⎞
⎟⎟ × 0 . 433 × γ ⎥ ………………………………….…. (9)
⎜ ESP + × N s⎥
× 10 − 3 kh
f
7 . 083 ⎝ q B ⎠
⎢ ESP
⎥
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
Since
q
JESP =
∆Pwf
Then,
1
J ESP =
⎡ ⎡ ⎛ re ⎞ ⎤ ⎤
⎢ Bµ ⎢ ln ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ − 0 . 75 + s ⎥ ⎥
⎢ ⎣ ⎝ rw ⎠ ⎦ − ⎛⎜ a B b ⎞
⎟⎟ × 0 . 433 × γ f × ⎥
⎢ −3 ⎜ ESP + N s⎥
7 . 083 × 10 kh ⎝ q B ESP ⎠
⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
…………………………………… (10)

As presented in the formula, JESP is a function of q, analogous to non-Darcy flow. If q is kept constant, a composite value for h is
used.
6 SPE 141984

Flow Efficiency of ESP-Lifted Well Using the New J Formula

The portion in the right side of the denominator in eqn. (9) represents the difference between flow capacity of a well with and
without ESP. Hence; the Flow Efficiency with ESP can be termed as
⎡ ⎛r ⎞ ⎤
B µ ⎢ ln ⎜⎜ e ⎟⎟ − 0 . 75 + s ⎥ ……….. (11)
FE =
J ESP
=
1
× ⎣ ⎝ rw ⎠ ⎦
J without ESP ⎡ ⎡ ⎛ re ⎞ ⎤ ⎤ 7 . 083 × 10 − 3 kh
⎢ Bµ ⎢ ln ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ − 0 . 75 + s ⎥ ⎥
⎢ ⎣ ⎝ rw ⎠ ⎦ − ⎛⎜ a B b ⎞
⎟⎟ × 0 . 433 × γ f × ⎥
⎢ −3 ⎜ ESP + N s⎥
7 . 083 × 10 kh ⎝ q B ESP ⎠
⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦

Method 2

Another approach is to deal with rate as compressible flow concept and to get the same pressure drop across the sand face,

7 . 083 × 10 − 3 kh ∆ Pwithout ………………………………………………………….. (12)

q total = q without + q with =
ESP

⎡ ⎛r ⎤
ESP ESP
⎞
µ B ⎢ ln ⎜⎜ e ⎟⎟ − 0 . 75 + s ⎥
⎣ ⎝ rw ⎠ ⎦
Where q ESP is additional rate due to additional ∆P by ESP and equal to?

7 . 083 × 10 − 3 kh ∆ P with ESP ……………………………………………………………………………………….. (13)

q ESP =
⎡ ⎛ re ⎞ ⎤
µ B ⎢ ln ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ − 0 . 75 + s ⎥
⎣ ⎝ rw ⎠ ⎦
Then
7 .083 ×10 −3 kh ∆ Pwith ESP 7 .083 ×10 −3 kh ∆ Pwithout ESP ……………………………….. (14)
q total = q without ESP + =
⎡ ⎛r ⎞ ⎤ ⎡ ⎛r ⎞ ⎤
µ B ⎢ ln ⎜⎜ e ⎟⎟ − 0 .75 + s ⎥ µ B ⎢ ln ⎜⎜ e ⎟⎟ − 0 .75 + s ⎥
⎣ ⎝ rw ⎠ ⎦ ⎣ ⎝ rw ⎠ ⎦
Let
7 . 083 × 10 − 3 kh ………………………….……………………………………………………….. (15)
D =
⎡ ⎛r ⎞ ⎤
µ B ⎢ ln ⎜⎜ e ⎟⎟ − 0 . 75 + s ⎥
⎣ ⎝ rw ⎠ ⎦

And since
∆ PESP = h s
× 0 . 433 × γ f × N s
= (aq + b ) × 0 . 433 × γ f × N s
……………………………………….. (16)

Then,
q + (aq + b ) × 0 . 433 × γ f × N s
× D = D × ∆ P without ESP
……………………………..………………………. (17)

Rearranging,

⎛ b ⎞ …………………….…………………………………….. (18)
q × ⎜⎜ 1 + ( a + ) × 0 . 433 × γ f × N s
× D ⎟⎟ = D × ∆ Pwithout ESP
⎝ q ⎠
Or
SPE 141984 7

D × ∆ Pwithout ………………………………………………………………….. (19)

q =
ESP

⎛ b ⎞
⎜⎜ 1 + ( a + ) × 0 . 433 × γ f × N s
× D ⎟⎟
⎝ q ⎠

And
q D ………………………………………………………….. (20)
J = =
∆ Pwithout ⎛ b ⎞
ESP
⎜⎜ 1 + ( a + ) × 0 . 433 × γ f × N s
× D ⎟⎟
⎝ q ⎠

Expanding, we have
7 . 083 × 10 − 3 kh
⎡ ⎛ re ⎞ ⎤ ………………….……………………………….. (21)
µ B ⎢ ln ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ − 0 . 75 + s ⎥
J = ⎣ ⎝ rw ⎠ ⎦
⎡ ⎤
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎛ b ⎞ 0 . 433 ×γ × N × 7 . 083 × 10 −3
kh ⎥
⎢ 1 + ⎜⎜ a + q ⎟⎟ ×
f s

⎡ ⎛ re ⎞ ⎤ ⎥
⎢ ⎝ ⎠ ⎥
µ B ⎢ ln ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ − 0 . 75 + s ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎣ ⎝ rw ⎠ ⎦ ⎥⎦

Application examples & Results

The application of the new J formulae to perform well performance analysis was conducted using commercial software. The
exercise was to use the new formulae and numerically quantify the impact of ESP lift as an added value for formation flow
capacity or well productivity enhancement, i.e. the equivalent increase in productivity index value. Using the data listed in table-1,
the calculated equivalent PI value using equation 10 varies as function of flow rate as suggested by the formula. The impact of
changing the flow rate on the calculated J value is presented in fig.5. As shown in the fig., the increase of flow rate decreases the
calculated J value as suggested by the pump perfromnce curve.

If the PI value is to be selected at the BEP of the pump (around 13500 Bbls/day), a J value of 38 (0 stage) can be assumed, and
hence, the surface performance will cross with that for a well with a J value of 10 and 10 stages of the ESP. the intersection was
made on the assumption of a constant J value, which is not what was suggested as it is function of flow rate. Other cases for
different PI values are also conducted. Results indicate an intersecting surface performance curves as shown in fig. 6. The
intersecting surface performance curves support the fact that and an ESP-lifted well can have an equivalent PI value that would
produce the same performance for a non ESP-lifted well.

A better way of modeling such calculation is to calculate the change in J value as function of production rate and use that value in
the Nodal calculation which will render better flow simulation. The matching curves at higher flow rate indicate reaching pipe
flow capacity.

Conclusions
Two methods for calculating an equivalent productivity index value, J value, of an ESP-lifted well were presented. The two
methods add the effect of ESP lift as an added pressure or flow rate. Another approach is deal with the effect of an ESP as a
negative skin in the formula. The use of such formulae will enable better way of modeling multiphase flow lifting using Nodal
analysis as the calculation can be calibrated with a known production condition that can develop empirical parameters for
calibrating performance in certain field/wells. In addition, a better prediction of the performance for any pump handling free gas
can be obtained using this approach.

The method can be used as a real-time production management if a real time data is obtained. Better modeling to accommodate
change of head due to rate changes, degradation of ESP, pressure drop in pipes, and change of J value as function of rate.
Moreover, with Nodal analysis using real time data, the solution can be used a measure of pump performance degradation and
potential failure.
8 SPE 141984

Nomenclature

Where: k = Reservoir permeability (Darcy)

H = Reservoir thickness (ft)
∆P = Drawdown (psi)
µo = Oil viscosity (cp)
Bo = Oil formation volume factor (rb/stb)
re = Reservoir radius (ft)
rw = Wellbore radius (ft)
S = Skin effect
No = number of stages per pump
hs = head per stage, ft
BESP = Oil formation volume factor at pump depth (rb/stb)
BEP= Best efficiency point
J= productivity index, SBPD/psi

References

1. Takacs, G.: “Electrical Submersible Pumps Manual, Gulf Professional Publishing,” an Imprint of Elsevier, 2009.
2. Lea, J.F., Rowlan, L., and McCoy, J.:”Artificial Lift Power Efficiency,” 46th Annual Southwestern Petroleum Short
Course, Lubbock, Texas, 1999. Lea, J.F., Winkler, H., and Snyder, R.E., “What’s New in Artifi cial Lift, (Part 2):
Fourteen Downhole and Surface System Developments from 11 Companies for Electrical Submersible Pumping and
Other Artificial Lift-related Operations”, World Oil, 227, 5 (May 2006).
3. The Lease Pumpers Handbook, “Chapter 7: Electrical Submersible Lift”, Oklahoma Marginal Wells Commission
(MWC), Oklahoma City, OK (last accessed June 2006).
4. Wilson, B.L., Mack, J., and Foster, D., “ESP Systems Operating Below the Perforations, SWPSC (April 8-9, 1998).
1. Takacs, G.: "Ways to Obtain Optimum Power Efficiency of Artificial Lift Installations," Paper No. SPE 126544, SPE Oil
and Gas India Conference and Exhibition, Mumbai, Jan. 20-22, 2010.
2. Poettmann and Carpenter: “The multiphase flow of gas, oil and water through vertical flow strings in application to
design and gas lift installations” Driil & Prod. Proc., 1953, 257
3. Hagedorn and Brown: “Experimental study of pressure gradients occurring during continuous two phase flow in small
diameter vertical conduits,” JPT, 1965, , 475, Trans AIME, 234
4. Aziz, Govier and Fogarasi: “Pressure drop in wells producing oil and gas,” J. Can Pet. Tec , 1972 ,11,38
5. Chierici, Ciucci and Sclocchi: “Two phase vertical flow in oil wells - prediction of pressure drop,” JPT, 1974, 927, Trans
AIME, 257.
6. Beggs and Brill: “A study of two phase flow in inclined pipes,” JPT, 1973, 607, Trans AIME, 255.
7. Mukherjee and Brill: “Pressure drop correlation for inclined two phase flows,” J. Emergy Res Tech , 1985, 107,549
8. Ansari: “A comprehensive mechanistic model for two phase flow in wellbores” SPEPE, 1994, 143 Trans AIME, 297
9. Vogel J.V.: "Inflow Performance Relationships for Solution-Gas Drive Wells," JPTQw. 1968) 83-87; Trans., AIME, 243.
2. Gipson, S.W. and Swaim, H.W.: "Designed Beam Pumping,' ' Proc.,” 19th Annual Southwestern Petroleum Short
Course, Lubbock; TX (April 1972)95.
10. Hasan, A.R. and Kabir, C.S.: "Determining Bottomhole Pressures in Pumping Wells," SPEI (Dec. 1985) 823-38.
11. Kabir, C.S. and A.R. Hasan: "Two-Phase Flow Correlations as Applied to Pumping Well Testing," ASME J. of Energy
Resources Tech., Vol. 116, 121-127 (June 1994). October.
12. Brown, K.E., “The Technology of Artificial Lift Methods”, Vol. 1, Petroleum Publishing Company, Tulsa, 1977
13. Brown, K.E., “The Technology of Artificial Lift Methods”, Vol. 2b, PennWell Publishing Company, Tulsa, Oklahoma,
1980.
14. Beggs, H.D.: “Production Optmization Using Nodal Analysis,” OGCI Publications, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1991.
15. Hagedorn, Alton R., Brown, K.E.: “Experimental Study of Pressure Gradients Occuring During Continuous Two-phase
Flow in Small Diameter Vertical Conduits,” Journal of Petroleum Technology, April 1965, p.475
16. Griffith, P.:”Two-Phase Flow in Pipes,” Summer Program, M.I.T., 1962.
SPE 141984 9

17. Brown, K.E.:“The Technology of Artificial Lift Methods,” Vol. 4, PennWell Publishing Company, Tulsa, Oklahoma,
1984.
18. Gilbert, W.E.:”Flowing and Gas-Lift Well Performance”, API Drill.Prod.Practice, 1954.
19. Nind, T.E.W.: “Principles of Oil Well Production”, McGraw-Hill, 1964.
20. Brown, K.E., Beggs, H.D.:“The Technology of Artificial Lift Methods”, Vol. 1, Petroleum Publishing Company, Tulsa,
Oklahoma, 1978
21. Duns, H. Jr., Ros, N.C.J.: ‘’Vertical Flow of Gas and Liquid Mixtures in Wells’’, 6th World Petroleum Congress,
Frankfurt, Germany.
22. Orkizewski, J.: “Predicting Two-Phase Pressure Drops in Vertical Pipe”, Journal of Petroleum Technology, June 1967
23. Beggs, H.D., Brill, J.P.: “A Study of Two Phase Flow in Inclined Pipes”, Journal of Petroleum Technology, May 1973
24. Aziz, K., Govier, G.W., and Fogarasi, M.,: “Pressure Drop in Wells Producing Oil and Gas”, Journal of Canadian
Petroleum Technology, July-September 1972
25. Gilbert, W. E.: “Flowing and Gas Lift Well Performance”, API Drilling and Production Practice, 1954, Dallas, Texas,
126-157.
26. H.K. Lee:”Computer Modeling and Optimization for Submersible Pump Lifted Wells.” Paper SPE 17586 presented at the
SPE International Meeting on Petroleum Engineering, held in Tianjin, China, November 1-4, 1966.
27. K. Brown, “Artificial Lift, Pen Wells Books, “Tulsa, Oklahoma City, USA (1985).
1. D.E. Carpenter and A.A. McCrea:”Beta field history: submersible pumps in heavy crude,” SPE 29508, in Production
Operations Symposium Oklahoma City, OK, 2–4 April (1995).
2. G. De Ghetto, P. Francesco and V. Marco, “Reliability analysis on PVT correlations,” SPE 28904 European Petroleum
Conference, London October (1994).
3. G. Golan and C.H. Wilson, “Well Performance,” Prentice-Hall, Engle-wood Cliffs, NJ (1991).
4. I.I. Ionel, “Pumps and Pumping,” Elsevier, Amsterdam (1986).
5. G. Joubert, H. Brito and J. Yibirin; “Production optimisation of re-entries by means of ESP,” SPE 37137 International
Conference on Horizontal Well Technology, Calgary 18–20 November (1996).
6. Nolen K. B. and Gibbs S.G.:” Analysis of Submersible Electric Pumping Systems,” SPE16196.
7. Brown K. E.: “Lifting Oil Recovery Technology,” Vol. 2, Oil Industry Press, 1987.
8. Cirilo, R.: “Air-Water Flow through Electric Submersible Pumps,” MS Thesis, the University of Tulsa, Oklahoma (1998).
9. Muravev, I.M. and Mishchenko, I.T.: “Experimental Investigation of the Operation of a Submerged Centrifugal Pump
under Arian Field Conditions,” Neft-Khoz. Vol. 43, No.12, (1965) pp 48-52.
10. Romero, M.: “An Evaluation of an Electric Submersible Pumping System for High GOR Wells,” MS thesis, The
University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma (1999).
11. Turpin, J.L., Lea, J.F. and Bearden, J.L.: “Gas-Liquid Flow through Centrifugal Pumps-Correlation of Data,” 3rd Intl
Pump Symposium, Texas A&M University (May 1986).
12. Datong, S., Pessoa, R . And Prado, M.: “Single-Phase Model for Radial ESP’s Performance” TUALP ABM. Tulsa, OK
(November 17, 2000).
13. Greitzer, E. M.: “Stability of Pumping System”, J. Fluids Eng. Vol.103, p. 193, (1981).
14. Wilson, B. L.: “ESP Gas Separator’s Affect on Run Life,” (1994). SPE paper 28526.
15. Berry, Michael R.: “Applicability of Published Pump Performance Curves to Live Crude Mixtures,” SPE Electrical
submersible pump work shop, (May 1-3, 1996).
16. Kallas, P. and Way, K.: “An Electrical Submersible Pumping System for High GOR Wells,” SPE Electrical submersible
pump workshop, (April 26-28, 1995).
17. Mikielewicz, J. et al.: “A Method for Correlating Characteristics of Centrifugal Pumps in Two-phase Flow,” Journal of
Fluids Engineering, V100, 395-409, December1979).
18. Abdallah Al Gahtani:”ESP runlife in Saudi Oil Fields,” 2002 Middle East Artificial Lift Forum, Dubai 2002.
19. Abdallah Al Gahtani:”Electric Submersible Pump (ESP) Selection Optimization: A Reservoir Engineering Outlook,”
2003 ESP workshop Houston, TX. 2003.
10 SPE 141984

 
 
Schematic 1, a Typical Submersible Pump Installation

 
 
 
                                                                                                                     
      Diffuser 
         
      Impeller   
   
           
 
 
 
 
 
 
Schematic 2, one stage of ESP (diffuser & impeller) 
 
 
 
SPE 141984 11

 
Fig. 1 Typical pump curve, Manufacturer Catalog Curves for GC6100 pump 
 
 

 
 
Schematic 3: Pressure Traverses for Pump on Bottom
 
12 SPE 141984

 
Fig. 2, IPR& OPR curves of non ESP lifted and equivellent IPR of ESP-lifted well

 
 
         

Oil grav. 30 API Pump Centrilift R330

Gas grav. 0.75 Motor Centrilift 544
GOR 400 SCF/STB Depth 7000'
Water 80000 PPM TBNG 7800' 4-1/2"(3.992")
P.I. & Pr 10 & 4000 BPD/psi, psi CSNG 8000'
Water cut 0 %
 
Table-1, Data of work example
 
 
SPE 141984 13

 
  Fig3, pump performance curve, typically presented in a polynomial function as a function of flow rate (q)
 
 

 
Fig. 4, the pump curve presented in a linear form
14 SPE 141984

 
Fig.5, the calculated equivalent PI value using equation as function of flow rate 
 
 

 
Fig.6, the calculated surface performance curves of the well for different cases.