Spe 192393 Pa

PO192393 DOI: 10.
2118/192393-PA Date: 22-October-19 Stage: Page: 678 Total Pages: 15
Use of Advanced Process Control

for Automating Conventional
Oilfield Operations
K. M. Patel, A. S. Bakhurji, H. S. Salloum, H. K. Kim, M. B. Winarno, and S. Mubarak, Saudi Aramco
Summary
With the growth of Internet of Things technology and the industrial revolution 4.0 (IR4.0), digital information is becoming more inte-
grated into our daily operations. Such a modality of operation allows all disciplines in an organization to collaboratively manage and oper-
ate their assets to achieve the maximum value of those assets. In this paper, we describe one of the initiatives under the company’s digital
transformation strategy. It is a simple yet innovative application of advanced process control (APC) that facilitates continuous optimiza-
tion of the performance of electrical submersible pumps (ESPs), not only to comply with the assigned production targets but also to auto-
matically meet the operational constraints. The successful implementation of this technology on multiple oil wells in an onshore oil field
has demonstrated significant power savings of 10 to 20%, and is expected to minimize premature failures and extend pump life.
Introduction
ESPs are among the most widely used artificial-lift technologies in the oil and gas industry to sustain, increase, or accelerate production
even in naturally flowing wells. ESPs are expensive, consume a lot of power, and are very costly to replace, because of lost production
as well as rig-related costs. Thus, it is very important to operate ESPs not only within their operating envelope, but as efficiently as pos-
sible while achieving the intended production targets. The process is complex and involves monitoring and manipulation of multiple
variables for every well. For instance, the monitored variables for an oil well, either measured or calculated, might include downhole
pressures, temperatures, ESP-motor current, voltages, surface pressures, flow, and water cut. The manipulated variables (MVs) for an
oil well might include the surface choke valve, the ESP speed, and the ESP volt/speed ratio. On the basis of the oilwell configuration,
the total number of monitored variables and MVs can range from 15 to 25. This makes it nontrivial to achieve desired production-target
flow from an oil well, while operating the ESP efficiently. Considering the fact that there could be hundreds of similar oil wells in an
oil field, it is certainly a very difficult, if not impossible, task to achieve the control objective of meeting production targets and the opti-
mization objective of operating ESPs efficiently throughout the oil field.
APC, also referred to as model-predictive control or multivariable control, is a technique that is well-suited for controlling and opti-
mizing the operations of a process where multiple variables affect each other. APC lends itself very well to the preceding challenge. It
has inspired some research work by Pavlov et al. (2014), and subsequently by Krishnamoorthy et al. (2016). But the work has been lim-
ited to implementation in a test laboratory setup or on a simulated well, respectively. Patel et al. (2014) dealt with APC as applied to a
simulated injection/production-well pair, but in an unconventional oil field. Large-scale APC implementation in a conventional oil field
with ESPs has not been reported in literature. In this paper we describe an innovative APC implementation on multiple oil wells in an
onshore conventional oil field, with documented benefits of improved flow compliance to production targets and reduced power con-
sumption as a result of efficient ESP operations.
We first present a process description of an oil well, along with a discussion on the ESP-pump curves highlighting the operating
envelope, and the electrically efficient operating region within that operating envelope. This is followed by a section on the current
state of conventional-oilfield operations handling hundreds of oil wells. We then suggest using APC technology, along with an over-
view, followed by a section on APC-application design, used in the actual implementation on an oil field in the Middle East, which we
will call Ace. This is followed by a discussion of results achieved and lessons learned. Finally, we provide a conclusion and the focus
for further development.
Oilwell Process Description

Fig. 1 shows a schematicof a typical oil well using an ESP for artificial lift, in a conventional oil field, which is the focus of this paper.
The green circles represent variables that are measured or calculated, while the blue circles represent the variables that can be changed,
to achieve flow compliance to target production, while operating the ESP efficiently within its envelope.
The oil well consists of an ESP installed thousands of feet underground along with pump intake, discharge pressure, and motor
winding temperature measurements. The ESP is powered by a variable-speed drive (VSD), through a step-up transformer installed at
the surface, which allows the ESP speed to be changed from the surface and potentially remotely from the control room. In addition to
speed, the VSD can allow the volts/speed ratio to be changed. The three-phase voltage and current outputs of the VSD are measured,
and used to calculate the ESP-motor voltage and current. The ESP pumps the fluid, which rises to the surface and passes through a
choke valve—the valve opening can be set remotely from the control room. The choke upstream and downstream pressure measure-
ments are used to calculate the differential pressure (DP) across the choke valve. The production flow is usually measured at the surface
using a multiphase flowmeter (MPFM).
Fig. 2 shows a typical pump curve for an ESP. The blue curves represent the operating points for different ESP speeds as the choke-
valve opening is changed. As the ESP speed is increased, the operating point rises higher while moving slightly left to right. As the
choke-valve opening is increased, the operating point moves from left to right as the pump head/DP decreases while the flow increases.
When an ESP is described to be in an upthrust condition, it indicates that the flow through the pump is so high that it creates an
upward force on the pump and the impeller, potentially resulting in stress in the pump as well as the impeller hitting the top of the
Copyright V
C 2019 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 192393) was accepted for presentation at the SPE Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Annual Technical Symposium and Exhibition, Dammam, Saudi Arabia, 23–26 April 2018, and
revised for publication. Original manuscript received for review 24 May 2018. Revised manuscript received for review 4 November 2018. Paper peer approved 28 May 2019.
678 November 2019 SPE Production & Operations
ID: jaganm Time: 14:33 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/190029/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##190029

PO192393 DOI: 10.2118/192393-PA Date: 22-October-19 Stage: Page: 679 Total Pages: 15
individual stages, as shown in the circle on the right in Fig. 2. Similarly, when an ESP is described to be in a downthrust condition, the
flow through the pump is restricted so much by a downstream restriction that it creates a downward force on the pump and the impeller,
potentially resulting in stress in the pump as well as the impeller hitting the bottom of the individual stages, as shown in the circle on
the left in Fig. 2. The downthrust and upthrust limitations put a limit on how much the choke valve can be opened or closed. Operating
an ESP in either upthrust or downthrust condition can cause wear and tear, ultimately leading to reduced run life. Operating the ESP
within these limits results in a desirable free-floating impeller within the stages.
VC
V/S SC II VI FI
V
S
PI DP PI
D
PI
VI II
FI
TI
PI
Fig. 1—Schematic diagram of a typical oil well with an ESP. II 5 current indicator; VI 5 volt indicator; FI 5 flow indicator; PI 5 pressure
indicator; DP 5 differential pressure; TI 5 temperature indicator; VC 5 position control; SC 5 speed control; V/S 5 volt-to-speed ratio.
Ma
xim
um
spe
ed
t
thrus
Down
e
erfo rmanc
Pump Head/DP
Well p
M t
in r us
im
um Upth
sp
ee
d
Flow
Fig. 2—Pump curve and operating envelope.
For an ESP, the operating envelope consists of a minimum speed at the bottom, a maximum speed at the top, downthrust limit on
the left, and upthrust limit on the right. When it is installed in a well at a certain depth, the well performance curve might limit the oper-
ating envelope, as seen in Fig. 2. The well performance curve represents the minimum head or DP that must be developed by the ESP
to achieve a certain flow from the well. The light-green-shaded region in Fig. 2 represents the operating envelope for the ESP. The ESP
must be operated within the operating envelope to avoid any mechanical problem that might lead to premature failure.
It is worth noting here that operating the ESP within its operating envelope and avoiding mechanical problems are not enough to
achieve high efficiency and the desired goals of these systems. Consider the operating point in the middle of the operating envelope rep-
resented by a black dot in Fig. 3. The flow is Q0 , while the head or DP generated by the ESP is DP0 . On the basis of the well perfor-
mance curve, we know that the minimum head or DP necessary for achieving the Q0 flow is only DPmin. Thus, the ESP is generating an
excess pressure of DP0 DPmin, which gets dropped across the choke valve, to achieve the flow of Q0 . This is analogous to driving a car
with high acceleration, and at the same time applying brakes to achieve the required speed on the road, which is not efficient. The ESP
is consuming extra power to generate the extra pressure of DPDPmin, which is then dissipated across the choke valve.
November 2019 SPE Production & Operations 679

Ma
xim
um
spe
ed
st
th r u
DP′
Down
e
Pressure erfo rmanc
decline across Well p
choke valve
DP min
t
us
Mi
hr
nim
t
Pump Head/DP
Up
um
sp
ee
d
Q′ Flow
Fig. 3—Electrically efficient operating region.
To reduce the ESP power consumption and be electrically efficient, the ESP should be operated such that the DP0 is just a little more
than DPmin (i.e., the pressure decline across the choke valve should be minimized to optimize the energy consumption). The pressure
decline can be minimized by decreasing the speed while opening the choke valve such that the flow is equal to Q0 , which will bring the
operating point vertically down just above the well performance curve. Extending the same reasoning across the whole light-green-
shaded ESP operating envelope in Fig. 3, the electrically efficient region lies at the bottom, shown as a thick dark green line. Maintain-
ing a certain minimum pressure decline across the choke valve is required to avoid a no-flow condition from occurring when the
production-network pressure declines.
Note that the electrically efficient region moves away from the well performance curve on the extreme left and right of the operating
envelope. The deviation between the electrically efficient region and the well performance curve means that it will not be possible to
minimize the pressure decline across the choke valve to a certain minimum. A higher pressure decline across the choke valve will have
to be maintained all the time for an oversized ESP because the well performance curve will be below the pump curves, as seen in
Fig. 4. In these cases, the choke-valve DP should be minimized as much as possible while honoring the operating envelope, which will
result in the ESP being operated as efficiently as possible.
Ma
xim
um
spe
ed
t
thrus
Pump Head/DP
Down
Min
imu st
ms thru rmanc
e
pee Up erfo
d Well p
Pressure decline across

choke valve
Flow
Fig. 4—Pump curve and operating envelope for an oversized pump.
There are more ESPs and well variables that need to be monitored and might limit the ESP operating envelope, but are not shown
on the pump curves in Figs. 2 through 4. They are ESP-motor current and voltage and pump-intake pressure, among others. The limits
on these variables also need to be considered while operating the ESPs, because they might not allow operating in the high-
efficiency region.
Similarly, there is one more ESP variable that can be changed, but is not shown on the pump curves, which is the volt/speed ratio.
Reducing this variable might help increase the power factor of the ESP motor, thereby reducing the power supplied to the ESP even
though the same amount of work is done or power is consumed by the ESP (i.e., it might help operate the ESP efficiently). Fig. 5 shows
the relationship between power supplied (apparent power), which is measured in volt amperage (VA), and power consumed (real
power), which is measured in watts (W).
When power (VA) is supplied to the ESP motor, a portion of the supplied power is used to generate a magnetic field in the motor.
This is the volt-ampere reactive power, measured in var units. The remaining portion of the supplied power gets converted into

mechanical energy in the form of motor-shaft rotation. This is the real power or the power consumed by the ESP, and is measured in W.
The real and apparent powers are related to each other by the following equation:
Power consumed ðWÞ ¼ Power supplied ðVAÞ Power factor

Power factor ¼ cosðuÞ: ð1Þ
Reactive power (var)

d
plie A)
r sup er) (V
we w
Po ent po
a r
(app
Power consumed
(real power) (W)
Fig. 5—Relationship between apparent and real power.
Reducing the volts/speed ratio could result in the scenario shown in Fig. 6, where the power supplied to the ESP is lower even
though the power consumed is the same. However, reducing the choke-valve DP, discussed before, will result in Fig. 5 changing into
Fig. 7, where both the power consumed and the power supplied are reduced. There is no change in the power factor in this case.
plied )
r sup A
Powe power) (V
power (var)
Reactive
a re n t
(app
ϕ new
Power consumed
(real power) (W)
Fig. 6—Effect of reducing the volts/speed ratio.

Reactive power (var)
d
plie A)
r sup er) (V
we w
Po ent po
a r
(app
Power consumed
(real power) (W)
Fig. 7—Effect of reducing the choke-valve DP.
In short, the multivariable task of optimally operating an individual oil well with an ESP is a very complex process, which is not
trivial for a human operator. This task becomes impossible when hundreds of oil wells are to be operated manually.
Current State of Conventional-Oilfield Operations

Typically, asset managers assign production targets for their assets, and possibly for individual wells. Field operation entities are
responsible for operating all the wells and to achieve target injection/production while operating ESPs efficiently. Fig. 8 shows this typ-
ical injection/production-management workflow.
Typically, the production-related focus of the field operation entities, in the order of priority, is as follows:
1. Achieve field-level flow compliance to field-level production target.
2. Achieve individual-well flow compliance to individual-well production targets.
3. Operate ESPs efficiently.
The field-level flow compliance gets the highest priority, and is almost always achieved unless there is a big upset such as power
outage. The individual-well flow compliance gets the next level of priority and is usually but not always achieved. This is because of
upsets such as ESP trips or unplanned maintenance on certain wells when operations have to make up for the lost production from
other wells. In doing so, the lost production is usually made up from just a few wells, rather than distributing the loss across a large
number of wells, because it is done manually. Efficient ESP operations usually get the least priority, not because it is less important, but
because it requires additional interventions, tedious manual operations, business with other tasks, and correct good ESP-monitoring
and -optimization tools.
Second, to achieve flow compliance, the usual order in which operations manipulate the available variables is (1) choke valve, then
(2) ESP speed.

Asset managers
Well injection target


Well oil target
Well oil target
Well oil target

Speed command Operations
Speed command
Speed command
Volt/speed ratio
Volt/speed ratio
Volt/speed ratio
Valve command
Valve command
Valve command
Valve command
Valve command
Valve command
Production wells Injection wells
Fig. 8—Injection/production-management workflow.
The choke valve is the first choice because of its straightforward effect on the flow. Opening it will give more flow, but if opened
too much it could push the ESP into upthrust condition. Closing it will reduce the flow, but if closed too much it will make ESP
operations inefficient.
ESP speed is usually the second choice because of the lack of good ESP understanding and (sometimes) the inability to change it
from the control room. If opening the choke valve does not provide the required flow, then the ESP speed is increased. For a flow reduc-
tion, often the choke-valve opening is reduced instead of reducing the speed. This action gives flow compliance, but not efficient
ESP operation.
The third ESP variable that can be changed, if available in the VSD, is the volt/speed ratio. This is a key variable that can help
improve ESP efficiency. This variable is set once and is seldom changed during the life of the ESP.
In short, the current state of conventional oilfield operations is such that ESP efficiency commands lower priority than flow compli-
ance and, second, the main ESP variables (speed and volts/speed ratio) that allow efficient operations are not changed as often.
There is a need for an automated control strategy that (1) can consider all the variables in an oil well, including the interactions between
them; (2) automatically manipulates the choke valve and ESP variables; and (3) achieves the operational goal of flow compliance, while
operating the ESP efficiently within its operating envelope. The presented innovative application of APC technology is designed to satisfy
these needs for an automated control system. The technology has been in use for decades, with documented application as early as 1978
(Richalet et al. 1978), but no documented case has been found for large-scale applications on a conventional oil field.
What Is APC?
APC is a multi-input/multioutput technology that optimizes operations by monitoring multiple input variables, predicting the future
behavior of the process variables, and manipulating multiple output variables simultaneously to achieve operating objectives consistently.
The monitored input variables are called controlled variables (CVs), while the manipulated output variables are called MVs. Both
MVs and CVs have limits within which APC operates the process. The MV limits are hard limits, which are always honored, whereas
CV limits are soft limits, which APC attempts to operate within but might not be able to all the time. An internal model consisting of a
relationship between MVs and CVs is used to predict future behavior, as well as to optimize and calculate the changes in MVs.
When applied to a process, APC results in stabilizing the process, thereby reducing the variability in the CVs. Once the process is
stable, the operating targets can be moved closer to the equipment limits or product specifications (as shown in Fig. 9), thereby increas-
ing profitability by either maximizing the revenue or minimizing the energy consumption, or both.
Patel et al. (2014) provide a good comparison between APC and the widely used proportional-integral-derivative (PID) control strat-
egy. They highlight the fact that the APC strategy is more suitable for controlling multivariable processes (e.g., an oil well) than the con-
ventional PID strategy. The conventional control strategy is usually implemented with a combination of multiple interconnected PID, lag/
lead, and high/low selector blocks, making it complex and difficult to maintain and tune. The APC strategy replaces the complex combina-
tions with a single APC block, making it relatively easier to maintain and tune, though it requires special expertise to design and build it.
An APC strategy is designed and implemented by performing the following steps:
1. State the operational objective.
2. Define the MVs and CVs of the process with respect to the operational objective. All the variables that operators/engineers
change are included as MVs. All the variables that they monitor and want to be at a target or within limits are included as CVs.
3. Develop models relating MVs and CVs. Either historical data or data from specially designed tests are used to identify the rela-
tionships, which are then incorporated in the model. The model could be either an empirical data-driven model or based on
first principles.

4. Configure the APC application by incorporating the identified model and set limits or targets for MVs and CVs.
5. Tune the application in the offline or simulation mode to achieve the operational objective.
6. Implement the application online and make necessary adjustments.
104
Specification or limit
102
100
Percent of Limit
98
96
94
Operator target
92 Standard deviation
Setpoint moved of CV
Before APC APC online closer to limit
90
Base case Stabilize Exploit
Fig. 9—Benefits of APC.
APC Design and Implementation at Ace

For the entire oil field, the operational objective is to achieve injection/production flow compliance to the assigned fieldwide target
while reducing the production cost.
The operational objective for individual oil wells is to achieve production flow compliance to the assigned well target and operate
the ESP as efficiently as possible and within its operating envelope. This was achieved by implementing one APC application per
oil well.
To achieve the operation objective for an individual oil well, variables were selected as MVs and CVs. Table 1 shows the MVs and
CVs for an oil well along with the APC philosophy for each variable. Fig. 10 shows the same variables in a schematic along with the
APC application. The MVs are shown in blue while the CVs are shown in green. The APC application reads all the CVs along with the
oil-production target and manipulates the MVs to achieve the operational objectives.
Process Variable Variable Type APC Philosophy

Choke-valve opening MV Maximize
ESP speed MV Minimize
ESP volt at 60 Hz (representing
MV Minimize
the volts/speed ratio)
Oil-production flow CV Hold at target
Choke-valve DP* CV Minimize to a low limit
Wellhead pressure CV Keep below high limit
Downhole flow* CV Keep within upthrust and downthrust limits
VSD output volts CV Keep below maximum VSD output
Motor volts* × 3 CV Keep within motor-volt rating
Motor amps* × 3 CV Keep within motor-amp rating
Motor-winding temperature CV Keep below motor rating
Pump-intake pressure CV Keep above bubblepoint pressure
Pump-discharge pressure CV Keep below high limit
* These variables are calculated. The equations used are shown below.
Choke-valve DP = Choke-upstream pressure − Choke-downstream pressure,
Downhole flow = Oil flow × Oil-formation factor + Water flow,
VSD amps
Motor amps = ,
Transformer ratio
Motor volts = VSD volts × Transformer ratio − Cable-voltage drop, and
Cable-voltage drop = Motor amps × Cable length × K factor,
Oil volume at reservoir

where Oil-formation factor = ,
Oil volume at surface
Oil flow = Oil production as measured by MPFM at the surface,
Water flow = Water production as measured by MPFM at the surface, and
K-factor = Cable resistivity per unit length (ohms/unit length).
Cable length was set equal to the ESP-installation depth.
Table 1—List of MVs and CVs for an oil well.

Oil-production
target
APC
VC
V/S SC II VI FI
V
S
PI DP PI
D
PI
VI II
FI
TI
PI
Fig. 10—Schematic diagram of an APC on an oil well. II 5 current indicator; VI 5 volt indicator; FI 5 flow indicator; PI 5 pressure
indicator; DP 5 differential pressure; TI 5 temperature indicator; VC 5 position control; SC 5 speed control; V/S 5 volt-to-speed ratio.
Note that if an MPFM is not available, the downhole flow can be calculated using the pump curves and downhole-pressure measure-
ments. Thereafter, the oil and water production can be calculated using an estimate of water cut.
The model was developed using data from specially designed tests, wherein the MVs (choke-valve opening, ESP speed, and volts at
60 Hz) were changed, such that the effect on CVs is significantly more than the noise in the measurements. Table 2 shows the results of
model development in the form of steady-state gains relating unit changes in MVs to the effect on CVs for a fictitious oil well. The first
column of values in the table, starting with 100 and ending with 4, indicates the magnitude of change in the respective CV happening
simultaneously for a 1% increase in the choke-valve MV. In particular, the first value of 100 indicates that a 1% increase in the choke-
valve MV results in a 100-B/D increase in oil-production CV and the last value of 4 indicates that the same 1% increase in the choke-
valve MV results in a 4-psig decrease in pump discharge pressure. Similarly, the second and third columns of values in the table
indicate the magnitude of change in the respective CVs for a 1-Hz and 1-V change in the ESP-speed MV and the volts at
60 Hz MV, respectively.
Volt at 60 Hz
CVs / MVs →
Choke Valve (%) ESP Speed (Hz) (volts)
→
Oil production (B/D) 100 300

Choke-valve DP (psig) –5 5
Wellhead pressure (psig) –5 5
Downhole flow (B/D) 125 400
VSD-output volts (V) 6 1
Motor volts × 3 (V) 7 6
Motor amps × 3 (A) 1 8 0.1
Motor-winding temperature (°C) 0.5 3
Pump-intake pressure (psig) –1 –5
Pump-discharge pressure (psig) –4 6
Table 2—APC-model steady-state gains.

The identified gains mentioned in Table 2 are accurate near the operating point where the test was performed. But as the operating
point moves in the operating envelope because of changes in, for example, the production target, reservoir pressure, or water cut, the
process gains change, and so the identified gains might not be as accurate. For example, the change in oil-production CV for a 1-Hz
increase in ESP speed MV (shown as 300 in Table 2) is higher when the choke-valve MV is open 75%, compared to that when the
choke-valve MV is open only 25%. Similarly, the change in oil production for a 1% increase in choke-valve MV opening (shown as
100 in Table 1) is higher when the ESP-speed MV is at 65 Hz, compared to that when the ESP-speed MV is 55 Hz. Thus, the gains for
choke-valve MV changes (first column in Table 2) depending on where the ESP-speed MV is and vice versa. To incorporate this non-
linearity in the process gains, the identified gains are adjusted on the basis of the affinity law (Perry and Green 2008) and some approxi-
mations. Thus, the model used is an empirical data-driven model with adjustments made on the basis of first principles.
The APC application was configured using third-party software, by incorporating the developed model and setting limits or targets
for MVs and CVs. The CV limits are usually set on the basis of equipment limitations, or as per asset management as shown
in Table 3.
CVs Low Limit High Limit Target

Oil production (B/D) As per asset management
Choke-valve DP (psig) Based on network-pressure
variation
Wellhead pressure (psig) Based on pipeline rating
Downhole flow (B/D) Based on downthrust limitation Based on upthrust limitation
VSD-output volts (V) Based on VSD rating
Motor volts × 3 (V) % of motor-volts rating % of motor-volts rating
Motor amps × 3 (A) % of motor-amps rating % of motor-amps rating
Motor-winding temperature (°C) Based on motor-temperature
rating
Pump-intake pressure (psig) Above bubblepoint pressure
Pump-discharge pressure Based on pump rating
(psig)
Table 3—CV-limit settings.
The MV limits are supposed to be set wide enough for APC to manipulate the MVs to hold CVs at their limits or targets, thereby
achieving the operational objective. The number of MVs that are within their limits and available to the APC application for manipula-
tion is called the degrees of freedom. For each degree of freedom, the APC application can hold one CV at its target or push one CV to
its limit. Ideally, all the MVs should be within their limits so that the degrees of freedom are maximum. At Ace, there are three MVs,
and so the maximum degrees of freedom are three.
Following the application configuration and setting of limits, the application was tuned offline in the simulation mode, to ensure that
the operational objectives are achieved. Tuning an APC application involves the following, as mentioned in Patel et al. (2014).
1. A decision on the direction and rate of MV movement. Tuning parameters are available for setting the MV direction as per the
philosophy mentioned in Table 1 for maximizing, minimizing, or holding an MV steady. At Ace, the choke-valve MV is set to
maximize and the ESP-speed MV is set to minimize, thereby resulting in reduced choke valve DP and ESP power consumption.
The volts at 60 Hz MV is set for minimization, thereby reducing the power supplied to the ESP by improving the power factor.
The rate of MV movement is set such that the MV changes are neither too fast nor too slow.
2. A decision on the acceptable deviation of CVs from their limits or targets. Tuning parameters are available to set the acceptable
deviation, so that the CVs are either strictly or loosely held near their limits or targets.
3. A decision on the relative importance of CVs. To handle a situation where more than one CV competes with another, tuning
parameters are available to specify CV priorities. At Ace, the equipment-limit CVs are set with high priority. Equipment-limit
CVs include motor amps, volts, upthrust, downthrust, pump intake and discharge pressure, and motor temperatures. The control
CV for oil production is set with low priority, while the others are set with medium priority.
The tuning was set such that normally the APC application will manipulate the three MVs, and either hold three CVs at their targets
or push them to their limits, so as to achieve the operational objective. Table 4 shows a few potential sets of three CVs that the APC
application was tuned to either hold at target or push to limits when all three MVs are available.
CV Set No. 1 (Typical Set) CV Set No. 2 CV Set No. 3

Oil flow at target Pump-intake pressure at low limit Oil flow at target
Choke-valve DP at low limit Choke-valve DP at low limit Downhole flow at high limit (upthrust)
Motor volts at low limit Motor volts at low limit Motor volts at low limit
Table 4—Set of CVs being controlled with three degrees of freedom.
Set No. 1 represents the typical situation encountered most of the time wherein the oil production is held at its target, while the
choke-valve DP and motor volts are pushed to their minimum, representing low power consumption. Set No. 2 represents a situation
where the oil-production target cannot be achieved because the reservoir pressure is low. Set No. 3 represents a situation where the
choke-valve DP cannot be minimized because the ESP must be operated within the upthrust limit. This can occur for an oversized ESP
that generates more than the required pressure, which must be dropped across the choke valve.

Results
With the APC application tuned properly in the offline mode, it was implemented online wherein the three MVs actually changed auto-
matically to achieve the operational objectives. APC technology has been implemented successfully on more than 100 oil wells in the
Ace Oil Field as of the day of submitting this paper. Detailed results of implementing APC on several oil wells is discussed in the next
subsection, along with the benefits of implementing it on the whole oil field.
ESP Power Savings. Figs. 11 and 12 show the actual 1-day trend of the first two CVs and the third CV of Set No. 1 in Table 4, respec-
tively, while Figs. 13 and 14 show the trend of the three associated MVs for a particular oil well. Fig. 15 shows the trend of the VSD
output volts and amps for the same time frame. The APC application for this well was turned on at approximately 14:30, as indicated
by the yellow arrow in Figs. 11 through 15. The target production was set to 6,000 B/D.
Oil-Flow and Choke-Valve-DP CVs

300 7,000
250 6,400
Choke DP (psi)
Oil Flow (B/D)

200 5,800
150 5,200
100 4,600
Chk DP low limit Chk DP Oil-flow target Oil flow

50 4,000
13:21
14:21
15:21
16:21
17:21
18:21
19:21
20:21
21:21
22:21
23:21
10:21
11:21
12:21
13:21
0:21
1:21
2:21
3:21
4:21
5:21
6:21
7:21
8:21
9:21
Time (hh:mm)
Fig. 11—Actual trend of oil-flow and choke-valve-DP (Chk DP) CVs for the power-savings case.
Motor-Volt% CV
105
100
Motor Volt% (%)
95
90
Motor-volt% low limit Motor volt%

85
13:21
14:21
15:21
16:21
17:21
18:21
19:21
20:21
21:21
22:21
23:21
10:21
11:21
12:21
13:21
0:21
1:21
2:21
3:21
4:21
5:21
6:21
7:21
8:21
9:21
Time (hh:mm)
Fig. 12—Actual trend of the motor-volt% CV for the power-savings case.
Choke-Valve and Speed MVs

50 70
Choke valve Speed
45 67
Choke Valve (%)
40 64
Speed (Hz)
35 61
30 58
25 55
20 52
13:21
14:21
15:21
16:21
17:21
18:21
19:21
20:21
21:21
22:21
23:21
10:21
11:21
12:21
13:21
0:21
1:21
2:21
3:21
4:21
5:21
6:21
7:21
8:21
9:21
Time (hh:mm)
Fig. 13—Actual trend of the choke-valve and the ESP-speed MVs for the power-savings case.

Volt at 60 Hz MV
450
440
430
Volt at 60 Hz (volt)
420
410
400
390
380
370
Volt at 60 Hz
360
350
13:21
14:21
15:21
16:21
17:21
18:21
19:21
20:21
21:21
22:21
23:21
0:21
1:21
2:21
3:21
4:21
5:21
6:21
7:21
8:21
9:21
10:21
11:21
12:21
13:21
Time (hh:mm)
Fig. 14—Actual trend of the ESP volts at 60-Hz MV for the power-savings case.
VSD Amps and VSD Volts

350 460
VSD amps VSD volts
330 440
VSD Amps (amp)
VSD Volts (volt)

310 420
290 400
270 380
250 360
13:21
14:21
15:21
16:21
17:21
18:21
19:21
20:21
21:21
22:21
23:21
0:21
1:21
2:21
3:21
4:21
5:21
6:21
7:21
8:21
9:21
10:21
11:21
12:21
13:21
Time (hh:mm)
Fig. 15—Actual trend of VSD volts and amps for the power-savings case.
The change in the CVs and MVs as a result of turning on the APC application is summarized in Table 5.
CVs Before APC After APC MVs Before APC After APC
Oil flow (B/D) 6,000 6,000 Choke valve (%) 22.5 28.5
Choke-valve DP (psi) 200 100 ESP speed (Hz) 65 61
Motor volt% (%) 101 95 ESP volt at 60 Hz (V) 421 397
Table 5—Change in CVs and MVs as a result of APC.
As seen in Table 5, the APC application maintained the oil-production CV at the target of 6,000 B/D, but captured the opportunity
to reduce the choke-valve-DP CV from 200 psi to its low limit of 100 psi, by opening the choke valve and reducing the ESP speed. This
resulted in reduced ESP power consumption, as represented by the change between Figs. 5 and 7. In addition, APC also captured the
opportunity to reduce the volts/speed ratio by reducing the volts at 60 Hz MV to the point when the motor-volt% CV reached its low
limit of 95% from 101%. This resulted in a reduced power supply to the ESP, as represented by the change between Figs. 5 and 6.
The reduction in VSD output volts and amps seen in Fig. 15, as a result of the preceding changes in CVs and MVs, is summarized in
Table 6. This resulted in a 16.5% reduction in the power supplied to the ESP.
When APC was implemented on multiple oil wells, 10 to 20% power savings were achieved, resulting in efficient ESP operations.
This represents significant annual financial savings. Efficient ESP operation also results in improved ESP run life, which results in addi-
tional benefits that are not yet quantified.
Improved Flow Compliance. Fig. 16 shows the actual 1-day trend of the first two CVs of Set No. 1 in Table 4, while Fig. 17 shows
the trend of the two associated MVs for another particular oil well. These figures depict the case of improved flow compliance, achieved
by increasing the oil production from 7,000 B/D to the target value of 7,500 B/D, while continuing to minimize the choke-valve DP,
thereby maintaining efficient ESP operations.

Power Variables Before APC After APC Change (%)

VSD volts 456 404 –11.4
VSD amps 293 276 –5.8
Power (VA) 133,608 111,504 –16.5
Table 6—Reduction in volts and amps as a result of APC.

250 8,000
200 7,500
Choke DP (psi)
Oil Flow (B/D)

150 7,000
100 6,500
50 6,000
Chk DP low limit Chk DP Oil-flow target Oil flow
0 5,500
31-October-2017 9:59
31-October-2017 10:49
31-October-2017 11:39
31-October-2017 12:29
31-October-2017 13:19
31-October-2017 14:09
31-October-2017 14:59
31-October-2017 15:49
31-October-2017 16:39
31-October-2017 17:29
31-October-2017 18:19
31-October-2017 19:09
31-October-2017 19:59
31-October-2017 20:49
31-October-2017 21:39
31-October-2017 22:29
31-October-2017 23:19
1-November-2017 0:09
Time (date hh:mm)
Fig. 16—Actual trend of oil-flow and choke-valve-DP (Chk DP) CVs for the flow-compliance case.

45 59
Choke valve Speed
40 58
Choke Valve (%)
Speed (Hz)
35 57
30 56
25 55
20 54
31-October-2017 9:59
31-October-2017 10:44
31-October-2017 11:29
31-October-2017 12:14
31-October-2017 12:59
31-October-2017 13:44
31-October-2017 14:29
31-October-2017 15:14
31-October-2017 15:59
31-October-2017 16:44
31-October-2017 17:29
31-October-2017 18:14
31-October-2017 18:59
31-October-2017 19:44
31-October-2017 20:29
31-October-2017 21:14
31-October-2017 21:59
31-October-2017 22:44
31-October-2017 23:29
Time (date hh:mm)
Fig. 17—Actual trend of the choke-valve and the ESP-speed MVs for the flow-compliance case.
Maintaining flow compliance on oil wells in an oil field enables better reservoir management and improved oil recovery in the long
term. Though it is difficult to quantify the resulting benefit, we believe that it can easily surpass the benefits from power savings or
improved ESP run life.
Long-Term Operation and Constraint Control. Fig. 18 shows the actual 1-month trend of the first two CVs of Set No. 1 in Table 4,
while Fig. 19 shows the trend of the two associated MVs for another particular oil well. The gap in the trend is because of the well
being shut-in. The data associated with the shut-in event have been removed to keep the trends clean. These figures give an idea of the

long-term variability of the CVs and MVs. Tighter control of CVs (less variability) around their targets generally means more variability
in the MVs and vice versa. APC tuning is adjusted to achieve the required trade off. As the choke-valve MV is usually an electrical
motor-operated valve, it is preferable to move it less often (less variability), while allowing the CVs to be controlled loosely near their
targets. Note that the choke-valve MV was moving more often in the first half of Fig. 19 resulting in tighter control of the choke-valve-
DP CV, as seen in Fig. 18. In the second half of Figs. 18 and 19, the choke-valve-DP CV tuning was relaxed for looser control, resulting
in a little more variability in the choke-valve-DP CV and a little lesser variability in the choke-valve MV. The choke-valve MV in the
second half of Fig. 19 was tuned such that it moves in 1% increments for not more than two to three times daily. The ESP-speed MV is
tuned to move in 0.15-Hz increments more often to partially compensate for the restriction in the choke-valve-MV movement.

5,500 140
Oil flow Oil-flow target Chk DP Chk DP low limit
5,000 120
Choke DP (psi)
Oil Flow (B/D)
4,500 100
4,000 80
3,500 60
3,000 40
2,500 20
16-July-2018
17-July-2018
18-July-2018
18-July-2018
19-July-2018
20-July-2018
21-July-2018
22-July-2018
22-July-2018
23-July-2018
24-July-2018
25-July-2018
26-July-2018
26-July-2018
27-July-2018
28-July-2018
29-July-2018
29-July-2018
30-July-2018
31-July-2018
1-August-2018
2-August-2018
2-August-2018
3-August-2018
4-August-2018
5-August-2018
6-August-2018
6-August-2018
7-August-2018
8-August-2018
9-August-2018
10-August-2018
10-August-2018
11-August-2018
12-August-2018
13-August-2018
Time (date)
Fig. 18—Actual long-term trend of the oil-flow and choke-valve-DP (Chk DP) CVs.

68.0 60
55
65.5
Choke Valve (%)

Speed (Hz)
50
63.0
45
60.5
40
Speed Choke valve
58.0 35
16-July-2018
17-July-2018
18-July-2018
18-July-2018
19-July-2018
20-July-2018
21-July-2018
21-July-2018
22-July-2018
23-July-2018
24-July-2018
24-July-2018
25-July-2018
26-July-2018
27-July-2018
27-July-2018
28-July-2018
29-July-2018
30-July-2018
30-July-2018
31-July-2018
1-August-2018
2-August-2018
2-August-2018
3-August-2018
4-August-2018
5-August-2018
5-August-2018
6-August-2018
7-August-2018
8-August-2018
8-August-2018
9-August-2018
10-August-2018
11-August-2018
11-August-2018
12-August-2018
13-August-2018
Time (date)
Fig. 19—Actual long-term trend of the choke-valve and ESP-speed MVs.
Also, note that the oil-flow CV in Fig. 18 was controlled at its target very well in the first half of the figure, but in the second half of
the figure the oil-flow CV was trending down and has stayed away from its target. The reason for APC’s inability to control the oil-flow
CV at its target was low pump intake pressure, as seen in Fig. 20. While increasing the ESP-speed MV to control the oil-flow CV, low
pump intake pressure was encountered. As the pump-intake-pressure CV is configured to be more important than the oil-flow CV, APC
decreased the ESP-speed MV to honor the pump-intake-pressure limitation while allowing the oil-flow CV to deviate from its target.
This demonstrates the ability of APC in handling multiple conflicting constraints.
Fig. 21 shows the actual 1.5-month trend of the first two CVs of Set No. 1 in Table 4, while Fig. 22 shows the trend of the two asso-
ciated MVs for yet another oil well. The gaps in the trends are a result of interruptions in data collection for the historian. Note that the
choke-valve MV was not available to APC, and so it is not moving in Fig. 22. Because APC could only move the ESP-speed MV and
not the choke-valve MV, it could control only the oil-flow CV at the target and could not minimize the choke-valve-DP CV to its low
limit, as can be seen in Fig. 21. Also note that the ESP speed MV gradually moves around by approximately 2.5 Hz in the 1.5-month
time frame, partly because of the gradual changes that happen in and around the well and partly because of the nonavailability of
the choke-valve MV. If the choke-valve MV were available to APC, it would have moved both the ESP-speed MV and the choke-
valve-MV simultaneously, resulting in less variability in ESP-speed MV.

690
Speed (Hz) Oil Flow (B/D) Oil Flow (B/D)
55.0
57.5
60.0
62.5
65.0
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
5,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
5,500
6,000
16-July-2018 16-July-2018 16-July-2018
17-July-2018 17-July-2018 17-July-2018
19-July-2018 19-July-2018 18-July-2018
20-July-2018 20-July-2018 18-July-2018
21-July-2018 21-July-2018 19-July-2018
22-July-2018 22-July-2018 20-July-2018
23-July-2018
Oil flow
24-July-2018 21-July-2018
25-July-2018 25-July-2018 22-July-2018
Oil flow
26-July-2018 26-July-2018 22-July-2018
27-July-2018 27-July-2018 23-July-2018
28-July-2018
29-July-2018 24-July-2018
29-July-2018
30-July-2018 25-July-2018
31-July-2018
31-July-2018 26-July-2018
1-August-2018
1-August-2018 26-July-2018
2-August-2018
3-August-2018 27-July-2018
Oil-flow target
3-August-2018
4-August-2018 28-July-2018
4-August-2018
Oil-flow target
5-August-2018 29-July-2018
6-August-2018
6-August-2018 29-July-2018
7-August-2018
8-August-2018 30-July-2018
8-August-2018
Time (date)
9-August-2018 31-July-2018
Time (date)
9-August-2018
PO192393 DOI: 10.2118/192393-PA Date: 22-October-19
Time (date)
10-August-2018 1-August-2018
10-August-2018
12-August-2018
Chk DP
13-August-2018
Intake pressure
14-August-2018
Oil-Flow and Intake-Pressure CVs
15-August-2018
Stage:

17-August-2018
18-August-2018
Speed
19-August-2018
20-August-2018
21-August-2018 21-August-2018 8-August-2018
Page: 690
23-August-2018 Chk DP low limit

Fig. 22—Actual long-term trend of the choke-valve and ESP-speed MVs.

26-August-2018
Intake-pressure limit
Fig. 20—Actual long-term trend of oil-flow and pump-intake-pressure CVs.
Choke valve
27-August-2018
Fig. 21—Actual long-term trend of oil-flow and choke-valve-DP (Chk DP) CVs.

29-August-2018
900
20
40
60
80
30
35
40
45
50
Total Pages: 15
1,000
1,100
1,200
1,300
1,400
1,500
100
120
140
Choke Valve (%) Choke DP (psi) Intake Pressure (psi)
November 2019 SPE Production & Operations

Lessons Learned
Implementing APC technology on a large scale in an oil field involves challenges that are usually not encountered when applying it to
other industries such as downstream oil and gas and the chemicals industry. Some of the challenges and associated lessons learned are
discussed below.
1. Need for high network availability and reliability. Oil fields cover a huge geographical area and generally use a supervisory con-
trol and data acquisition system over a very large network consisting of hundreds of switches and convertors, along with hundreds
of kilometers of cables to connect the remote wells with the control room. The status of the network communication between
remote wells and the control room gets affected by many factors, such as harsh weather conditions, physical damage to equip-
ment, and limited access, etc., resulting in communication failure. These in turn result in APC applications turning off, thus
reducing the benefit. The lesson learned is that along with high instrumentation availability, high network availability and reli-
ability are also necessary for successful APC implementation.
2. Need for a large-scale deployment mindset. Oil fields generally consist of numerous oil wells. Depending on the size of the oil
field, the number can range from a few tens to a few hundreds. The solution to managing such a large inventory of APC applica-
tions is not to hire more manpower to support it, but to empower existing manpower to efficiently manage the applications, by
developing tools and using a smart deployment methodology that takes advantage of the similarities between multiple wells. Dis-
cussion on the tools developed and the smart deployment methodology used is outside of the scope of this paper. The lesson
learned is that managing oilfield APC implementation demands a large-scale deployment mindset with “outside the box” thinking.
Conclusions
APC technology is well-suited to controlling and optimizing the operations of oil wells in a conventional oil field. Although it demands
special expertise in designing and implementing it with a large-scale-deployment mindset, the benefits of power savings, improved ESP
run life, and better reservoir management make it worthwhile.
The adoption of APC technology by the upstream oil and gas industry will open up an era of better operational control and optimiza-
tion in conventional oil fields.
Focus for Future Development

Having used APC technology to control and optimize oil wells to achieve power savings and flow compliance on an individual-well
basis, our focus in the future will be to use APC technology to coordinate hundreds of individual-oilwell APC applications to achieve
power savings and flow compliance on a fieldwide basis.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Saudi Aramco management for allowing the publication of this paper. The authors would also like to
thank the following people for their support and contributions in implementing APC and achieving the results: Rohit Patwardhan,
Robert L. Cox, Said S. Malki, and the ESP-vendor personnel.
References
Krishnamoorthy, D., Bergheim, E. M., Pavlov, A. et al. 2016. Modelling and Robustness Analysis of Model Predictive Control for Electrical Submersi-
ble Pump Lifted Heavy Oil Wells. IFAC 49 (7): 544–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2016.07.399.
Patel, K., Aske, E. M., and Fredriksen, M. 2014. Use of Model-Predictive Control for Automating SAGD Well-Pair Operations: A Simulation Study.
SPE Prod & Oper 29 (2): 105–113. SPE-165535-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/165535-PA.
Pavlov, A., Krishamoorthy, D., Fjalestad, K. et al. 2014. Modelling and Model Predictive Control of Oil Wells with Electric Submersible Pumps. Pre-
sented at the IEEE Conference on Control Applications, Antibes, France, 8–10 October. https://doi.org/10.1109/CCA.2014.6981403.
Perry R. H. and Green D. W. 2008. Pumps and Compressors. In Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook, eighth edition, ed. D. W. Green and J. H.
Perry, Chap. 10, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Richalet, J., Rault, A., Testud, J. L. et al. 1978. Model Predictive Heuristic Control: Applications to Industrial Processes. Automatica 14 (5): 413–428.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-1098(78)90001-8.
Kalpesh M. Patel is an engineering specialist at Saudi Aramco. He began his career in 1992 as an instrumentation and control
engineer, before getting involved in his research interest related to APC in both upstream and downstream processes. Patel
has more than 20 years of experience working in various positions in India, Canada, and Saudi Arabia. He has authored or
coauthored two technical papers published in journals and holds one patent, while another patent application has been filed.
Patel holds an MS degree in electrical engineering with specialization in control engineering from the Indian Institute of Technol-
ogy, Mumbai, India. He is a Professional Engineer registered with the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of
Alberta (APEGA), Canada, and is registered with the Saudi Council of Engineers in Saudi Arabia. Patel also holds the Certified
Automation Professional certification from the International Society of Automation. He is a member of SPE.
Ammar S. Bakhurji is an APC engineer at Saudi Aramco. He has been with Saudi Aramco for more than 3 years. Previously,
Bakhurji worked for almost 2 years as a process control engineer for Sabic. He holds a BS degree in chemical engineering from
the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Hussein S. Salloum is an engineering consultant at Saudi Aramco. He has been with the company for more than 23 years.
Salloum’s current interest includes APC and IR4.0 solutions for the oil and gas industry. He holds a BS degree in chemical engi-
neering and an MS degree in engineering management, all from King Fahd Univeristy of Petroleum and Minerals.
Hyun Kil Kim is a lead engineer at Saudi Aramco. He joined Saudi Aramco in 2013 as a senior control and instrumentation
engineer, and for the last 20 years, has focused his career mainly on process automation control, supervisory-control-and-data-
acquisition systems, and cogeneration plant turbine control systems. Kim has worked in the process automation and gas-
turbine-driven power-generation industry since 1983. He holds a BS degree in mechanical engineering with a Professional
Engineer Certification by APEGA. Kim is a member of SPE.
Mulad B. Winarno is an engineer at Saudi Aramco. He has more than 18 years of experience in production engineering/
technology, including well completion and reservoir management. Winarno has worked with a number of oil companies,
including Maxus SES Ltd., Repsol-YPF, China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) SES Ltd., Petroliam Nasional Berhad

(PETRONAS), and Saudi Aramco. He joined Saudi Aramco in 2012 as a production engineer and handles more than 400 wells
equipped with ESPs. Winarno holds a BS degree in petroleum engineering from University of Pembangunan Nasional Veteran
(UPN), Yogyakarta, Indonesia. He is a member of SPE.
Saeed Mubarak is the intelligent-fields focus area champion who has led several teams including the strategic team managing
the world’s largest intelligent fields at Saudi Aramco. Previously, he worked for more than two decades in reservoir manage-
ment, production engineering, drilling and completion engineering, and reservoir description. Mubarak holds a bachelor’s
degree in chemical engineering and a master’s degree in petroleum engineering. He has authored or coauthored a number of
technical publications and posts, and holds one US patent and one European patent. Mubarak has been an active SPE certified
member since 1994, has served SPE diligently in various capacities that span across local and international levels, technical and
administrative, and simple to leadership roles. He has served as an SPE Distinguished Lecturer, a panelist, a keynote or invited
speaker, and a discussion leader for more than 40 events in 20 countries. Mubarak is the recipient of several national, regional,
and international SPE awards including the 2009 SPE Regional Management and Information award, the 2011/2012 SPE Saudi
Section “Community Service Award,” and the 2014 SPE International Award for Management and Information. He is the 2017 to
2020 chairperson of the International SPE Digital Energy Section, a member of the SPE Advisory Committee for Management
and Information, was the 2017 to 2018 chairperson of the SPE International Award Committee, and a member in the SPE Awards
and Recognition Committee.

Spe 192393 Pa

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spe 192393 Pa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PO192393 DOI: 10.

2118/192393-PA Date: 22-October-19 Stage: Page: 678 Total Pages: 15

Use of Advanced Process Control

Oilwell Process Description

678 November 2019 SPE Production & Operations

ID: jaganm Time: 14:33 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/190029/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##190029

Fig. 2—Pump curve and operating envelope.

November 2019 SPE Production & Operations 679

ID: jaganm Time: 14:33 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/190029/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##190029

Fig. 3—Electrically efficient operating region.

Pressure decline across

Fig. 4—Pump curve and operating envelope for an oversized pump.

680 November 2019 SPE Production & Operations

ID: jaganm Time: 14:33 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/190029/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##190029

Power consumed ðWÞ ¼ Power supplied ðVAÞ Power factor

Reactive power (var)

Fig. 5—Relationship between apparent and real power.

Fig. 6—Effect of reducing the volts/speed ratio.

Fig. 7—Effect of reducing the choke-valve DP.

Current State of Conventional-Oilfield Operations

November 2019 SPE Production & Operations 681

ID: jaganm Time: 14:33 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/190029/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##190029

Well injection target

Well injection target

Well oil target

Fig. 8—Injection/production-management workflow.

682 November 2019 SPE Production & Operations

ID: jaganm Time: 14:33 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/190029/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##190029

Fig. 9—Benefits of APC.

APC Design and Implementation at Ace

Process Variable Variable Type APC Philosophy

Downhole flow = Oil flow × Oil-formation factor + Water flow,

Cable-voltage drop = Motor amps × Cable length × K factor,

Oil volume at reservoir

Table 1—List of MVs and CVs for an oil well.

November 2019 SPE Production & Operations 683

ID: jaganm Time: 14:33 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/190029/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##190029

Oil production (B/D) 100 300

Table 2—APC-model steady-state gains.

684 November 2019 SPE Production & Operations

ID: jaganm Time: 14:33 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/190029/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##190029

CVs Low Limit High Limit Target

Table 3—CV-limit settings.

CV Set No. 1 (Typical Set) CV Set No. 2 CV Set No. 3

Table 4—Set of CVs being controlled with three degrees of freedom.

November 2019 SPE Production & Operations 685

ID: jaganm Time: 14:33 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/190029/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##190029

Oil-Flow and Choke-Valve-DP CVs

Oil Flow (B/D)

Chk DP low limit Chk DP Oil-flow target Oil flow

Motor-volt% low limit Motor volt%

Fig. 12—Actual trend of the motor-volt% CV for the power-savings case.

Choke-Valve and Speed MVs

686 November 2019 SPE Production & Operations

ID: jaganm Time: 14:33 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/190029/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##190029

VSD Amps and VSD Volts

VSD amps VSD volts

VSD Volts (volt)

Table 5—Change in CVs and MVs as a result of APC.

November 2019 SPE Production & Operations 687

ID: jaganm Time: 14:33 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/190029/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##190029

Power Variables Before APC After APC Change (%)

Table 6—Reduction in volts and amps as a result of APC.