Articles – Experience

Coated couplings in sucker rod pump system

Friction problem
Couplings are rod connecting devices, that due to its large relative size, are

prone to generate more friction against the tubing. Then, it is necessary to

implement a protection to the tubing or to the coupling.

Tubing can be lined internally, but it is a very expensive and potentially

complicated alternative to mechanical pumping. Coupling lining is an efficient

alternative that brings good results and is affordable.

Coated couplings have been initially developed on the market for 3/4 and 7/8

“diameter couplings.

Oilfield experience, the 1” coupling problem

After installing 3/4” & 7/8” coated rod couplings in every sucker rod pump

system intervened in the oilfield during several years with excellent results,

decreasing tubing & couplings friction failures in that zones, the friction failures

increased in the 1” uncoated slim hole couplings zones.

The narrow space between the 1″ slim hole coupling and the 2.7/8″ tubing put a

compromise between the coating thickness and the pressure loss. Then, there

was a general skepticism to develop a product.

Product development
Our production engineers promoted & lead the creation of a working group to

develop a 1″ Slim hole coated coupling model, and participated with Well

service Engineers & a Supplier (For design), Reservoir Engineers (For pressure

loss calculations) and production and pulling supervisors (For subsequent

operational monitoring).

The product was developed, with 2 instances of design improvement and a

tender to improve prices & develop others suppliers. After that our productions

engineers advised one of that suppliers that developed another coated coupling

model. A reduction in friction failures was achieved in the 1″ zone, along with

other complementary actions. Additionally, design modifications were made to

the old 3/4″ and 7/8″ coated couplings models. Besides, an increase in the

reuse rate of couplings, rods and tubings was achieved.

Annual savings: $300,000/year in failures reduction for the oil and gas

company.
 Chelating Agents

How are chelating agents used in oil and gas industry?

Chelation is derived from Greek χηλή, chēlē: “claw”; Chelating agents are

molecules that contain 2 or more groups (ligands) that can provide electrons to

form coordinate bonds with a central metal ion, like crab claws, and thus form

more stable compounds.

The Chelating treatment to capture metal ions and dissolve scales (for example

in formation damage) is an alternative to another usual treatments to dissolve

CaCO3, CaSO4, SrSO4 and BaSO4. Is well known in the oil and gas industry

from the middle 90´s, but not everywhere. For some scales, as CaCO3, if often

to use the diluted HCl treatment.

Case study
An oil 75 bbl/day well with that kind of scale formation damage was identified,

reducing the oil production to 12.5 bbl/day. After several HCl treatments and a
Workover for re-perforations in oil layers, the well continued with the same

formation damage.

Our Reservoir Engineers with our Productions Engineers & a Chemical

Specialist assistance, studied the case with a different perspective for that non

common treatment in the area, to stimulate using a Chetaling Treatment to

capture Calcium, an alkaline earth metal, in order to dissolve the CaCO3 scale

damage.

The treatment was successfully executed removing the formation damage with

an increasing penetration, 50% more cheaper than the other treatment,

avoiding the contact between the corrosives well dissolved gases catalyzed by

a strong acid as the HCl with the iron of the downhole production facilities.

The oil Well recovered the 75 bbl/day production (+$3,000/day), and required 2

of those treatments a year.

Conclusion
Chelating treatment is relatively new and a less expensive alternative to

dissolve some common scales as CaCO3, CaSO4, SrSO4 and BaSO4 for oil and

gas companies.

Advantages: High penetration, non-corrosive, highly degradable and

environmentally friendly.

Disadvantages: Slow reaction speed, due to the large difference in size

between the chelating agent molecule and the cation.

 Multivariate analysis

Variables
The election of an optimizable action is coming more complicate as more

variables are considered. As well as more variables are considered, more

specify and more probabilities to success. Understand each variable often

requires a particularly study or a particular model, should be validated to ensure

its correct interpretation and adequacy. As an example of some of these

variables are: Reservoir behavior, quality of surface measurements, success in

optimizations, real allocation, echometric corrections, each variable cost

depending on production, failure index, modeling of pulling interventions

(failures and optimization), injection and plant system capacities, bottlenecks.

All integrated into a technical and economic analysis where profitability is of the

utmost importance.

Case study
Our production engineers had developed a tool to consider parameters and

multiple variables in the competitive election of which is the better well

candidate to optimize. Previously had set up that variables some of which come

from other specific studies.

As a result, the execution of that detected and analyzed opportunities in a 300

well Oilfield determined the identification of many actions. Almost 2 years of

continuous downhole optimizations. This would not have been possible if the

failure rate had not been previously reduced, which allowed greater availability

of tower equipment for optimizations. One or two Rig interventions per month,

oil profit: +125 bbl/day total average first year, 94 bbl/day total average second

year. Besides, has been one of the keys of 2% operational decrease in the

natural decline in a mature oilfield and production plan compliance without

Workover activity previously planned.

Benefits
Annual profit: $1,150,000 in the first year. $3,150,000 in the second year. Total

$4,300,000

These type of studies are very important for oil and gas companies. It is a work

that requires time consuming experience in understanding and interpreting the

field.

Understanding improves profitability, and changes life.

Rig operation cost reduction

Versatility and flexibility
Operations versatility and Rig tower equipment adaptation flexibility is a

necessary characteristic to optimize times and costs, for any oilfield. Workover

costs are among the most significant in the oil and gas companies.
Therefore, taking action to speed up operations of both light pulling equipment

and Workover equipment while maintaining their quality is vital for companies to

adapt to new times, especially in times of low oil barrel prices.

Cost reduction and operations

A Rig tower pulling equipment, with a rotating head and a liquid storage

container adaptation, can supply many of the Workover operations optimizing

time and costs at least 50%. To carry out this adaptation, it is essential to have

an experienced tower equipment specialist as well as trained operational

personnel with operations acknowledge.

The operations that can be carried out by adapting a light Rig pulling equipment

to heavy Rig tower equipment are the following: Well completion, perforations

and re-perforations in layers with an orifice plates manifold and vent line to the

burning pit, testing layers, fracturing, carrying out all kinds of profiles, cement,

perform stimulation treatments, repair wells, casing breaks detection and carry

out fishing operations. The limitation is the realization of Casing patches

because it is required to have a rotary table, which the Workover has. However,

the use of a rotary head has more power than the rotary table and there is a

trend towards greater use of the first in replacement of the second.

In addition, the operations are faster due to the agility Rig pulling equipment

characteristic compared to the Workover and due to the habit of its personnel to

optimize times. The specifics tools availability can be limited to only the days

that it will be used. The disassembly, transport and assembly of the Rig

equipment requires less time. The associated services to supply the equipment
are also minor, such as compartments for staff, liquid storage containers, space

in location and their prior preparation and supplies for staff. All of this has a

direct impact on times and costs of at least 50%.

Conclusion
In short, the adaptation of this type of equipment is not only an opportunity, but

also a necessity, as an aspect to evaluate aimed at increasing the profitability of

oil and gas companies.

Advantages: Cost savings of at least 50% compared to the same Workover

operations. Carrying out same quality work in less time.

Disadvantages: Casing patching cannot be performed because it requires a

rotary table. Requires experienced personnel to change tasks from light tower

equipment to heavy tower equipment.

At lift professional group we have a Rig tower specialist with more than 30 years

of experience (and 50 years old) in these Rig tower adaptation in light

operations to heavier equipment; with the technical capabilities and

interpersonal management so that the transition is complete. In addition, the

assistance of Workover Engineering to complement the teamwork and add

quality in each operation detail.

Failure Analysys - Know How

Field Data
Failure: A 7/8”diameter sucker rod, with a fracture in the last pin thread.

• Rod material: MMS 4138M High strength (chrome molybdenum alloy

steel with low nickel), condition B (Used).

• Failure at 5400 ft depth.

• 322 days in service.

• 54% rod and 81% coupling Goodman loads.

 • Sulfhydric environment (H2S).

• 500 barrels/day total flow, 90% Water cut.

• Pumping speed: 3 Strokes per Minute, 306″ (Rotaflex).

Analysis

• Macrographic evaluation: numerous Ratchet marks (Lines parallel to the

overall direction of crack propagation) over the 33% last loaded pin

thread perimeter. The fracture beginning was in that area and due to a

fatigue process.

• Micrographic evaluation: Crack initiation was at the root of last loaded

thread pin. No secondary micro-cracks or signs of corrosion were found.

• No construction defects or significant plastic deformations that evidenced

over torque were detected. Thread according to specifications.

• Chemical composition analysis, hardness control and metallographic

evaluation: The established for the quality of the material according to

the manufacturer’s specifications was complied with.

Evaluation
Based on the observed fractography, it allows us to affirm that the threaded

union between the sucker rod and the coupling did not behave correctly and

possibly functioned with insufficient torque between them (lack of

circumferential displacement). This lack of torque weakens the threaded joint

and overloads the last pin thread, multiplying the stresses in this area and

generating the origin of cracks by a fatigue process.

Failure mode
High cycle tensile fatigue originating from the root of the last pin thread.
Root cause
Improper rods and couplings assembly (lack of circumferential displacement

during mounting).

Recommendations and corrective actions to avoid similar failures

• Clean and dry carefully the rod pin threads and thrust bearing surface,

also the couplings threads and thrust bearing surface.

• Visually condition inspection of the pin profiles and coupling thread

profiles.

• Check the torque meter condition.

• Use a proper tightening procedure during assembly.

• Verify proper angular displacement (torque) during assembly.

• Train the personnel in charge of assembling the coupling and rod string.

• Carry out random checks during assembly operations.

Know How is an engineering company with more than 1200 failure analysis

performed.

Lift professionals have been analyzing failures for more than 10 years.

We are both team partners and we have been working as a team for more than

5 years, analyzing failures from different perspectives, recommending and

taking actions to reduce them.