ARTIFICIAL WATER LIFT AT STATFJORD

A case study of offshore artificial lift methods

Pål Jåtun Pedersen

Trondheim June 2007

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord

NTNU, June 2007

Preface
The work presented in this Diploma thesis was conducted in the 10th semester of the Petroleum Engineering studies at NTNU. It was written at the Department of Petroleum Engineering and Applied Geophysics, spring 2007. The thesis is 144 pages, and was delivered the 13th of June 2007. The work presented was prepared by the author in collaboration with Statoil ASA, and with Professor Jón Steinar Guðmundsson as academic advisor.

I would like to express my gratitude to Professor Jón Steinar Guðmundsson for guidance and advice throughout the thesis work. Also, I am very grateful for all the help I have received from Statoil ASA, by Bodil Fjæreide Sømme and Jess Milter.

Finally, I would like to thank Jarle Christensen at Weatherford Norge AS, and Andrew Henderson at Baker Hughes CENTRILIFT, for help and support.

_________________
Pål Jåtun Pedersen

i

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord

NTNU, June 2007

Abstract
As the Statfjord field approaches the limit for maximum oil recovery, the field is to be converted from producing oil to producing gas. In order to enhance the gas production, gas trapped in the residual reservoir oil is to be released and produced by reducing the reservoir pressure significantly. To accelerate the pressure drawdown, pumping of deep water is to be conducted. In this thesis three offshore artificial lift methods are evaluated for this task. These are ESP, Jet Pumping and Gas Lift.

Overall power efficiencies for the artificial lift methods are established. It was found that the ESP has the highest overall power efficiency for the larger part of the depressurization period. The reported overall power efficiency for ESP is about 44% for the larger part of the project phase, while it is about 25% for Jet Pumping. As the reservoir pressure declines very fast during the early project phase, Gas Lift was found unsuitable as an artificial water-lift method for the majority of the depressurization period.

Opex and Capex were estimated for ESP and Jet Pumping. The large required number of well interventions and pump replacements results in very high total expenses for ESP. Compared to Jet Pumping, ESP is estimated to be about twice as expensive. The total discounted project costs for 10 years are estimated to about 1 billion NOK for Jet Pumping and about 2 billion NOK for ESP. Hence, although ESP is the most energy efficient alternative, Jet Pumping is found to be the best economical solution. However, from an environmental point of view, ESP is the best suited alternative, due to the highest energy efficiency.

ii

3 Model calculations ......................................................................................................................................Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU............. 7 3................... 41 7.............................. 41 iii ........................ 20 5................................................................................................................ 2 2.........................5 ESP principles ........................................ June 2007 Table of contents 1.......................................................................2......... Artificial Lift Literature Survey ............ Application of Gas Lift .................................................... 29 6............ 38 7.......................... 38 7...................................................... 33 6..............2 Jet Pump sizing........... 12 5................................... 24 6.2................................. Application of Electrical Submersible Pump ........................................................................................................................................ 2 2............................................................................................................................................ 4 2..........................1 Main factors to control pump performance .................. 3 2...............3 Model calculations ...................4 Gas lift principles ................. 9 3......................................................................2 Jet Pump performance ..................3 Pumping of water to accelerate pressure drawdown ..................................................................................... 24 6.....2 ESP performance ........ 5 2........... The Statfjord Field ............................................................................................................................................................... Case Description ...................2....................................................................................................... 10 4.............................................3 Jet Pump principles ............................................................................................................................................ 17 5...............................................1 Main factors to control gas lift performance ...................... 14 5......2................... Application of Jet Pump . 17 5...................4 Evaluation of results .............................. 14 5........................ 25 6............................................................................ 17 5...2 Gas lift design.............................................................................................................................. 22 6.......................................2 Presentation of the planned re-development of Statfjord ............... 25 6............................1 Field overview .............................................................1 Main factors to control pump performance ...............................1 Presentation of Gas lift model ....................................... Introduction ................................................. 5 3........ 7 3...............1 Presentation of ESP model .....................................1 When is artificial lift required ............................................................2 Gas lift performance ........................................ 1 2.......................4 Evaluation of results ................................................................................................2....... 36 7.....................2 Comparison of offshore-applicable artificial lift methods ......................................................................................1 Presentation of Jet pump model .....................................

....... 41 7.......... Case B ..3 Capex estimates using ESP ......................................................................... 124 Appendix B........................................................................................................ 134 Appendix B........................................ Case C ................................................................................................. 51 9.................... 137 Appendix C – ESP Calculations... 77 Appendixes ......................................3 Opex estimates using ESP ...................... 124 Appendix A – Jet Pump Calculations ................................................................................................................................................................ 60 Figures ........................................................................................2 – Gas Lift calculations......................... Case A ............................................... 47 8..... June 2007 7....4 Evaluation of results ............................................................... Artificial Lift Capex Estimates for Statfjord ............................................................................................................................................................................................3 Model calculations ...... 53 11............................................................................... 48 8..................................1 Capex estimates using Jet Pump ....................2 Capex estimates using Gas Lift ..... Conclusion ........................................................................ 50 9............. Discussion .................................................................. References ............................................................................................................. 45 8................................... 48 9.......................... 139 iv .......1 – Gas Lift calculations............................................................................................. 56 12......................... 47 8............................................................1 Opex estimates using Jet Pump ..........................2 Opex estimates using Gas Lift....................... 51 10...........................................2 ESP sizing ....Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU..................................... 50 9........................................ 136 Appendix B..............................3 – Gas Lift calculations............ Artificial Lift Opex Estimates for Statfjord ............................................................................................................... 42 7..................................................................................2........................................................................... 58 Tables .................

This water is mainly aquifer water. Calculations (sizing) are to be carried out for optimal design for the three methods. In this master thesis the three above artificial lift methods are to be evaluated as petroleum production techniques for water lift. including relevant flow rates. respectively. year 2020. Gas production is expected to last until. These are Jet Pumping. The pumping is planned conducted from two formations. where the Brent Group is the most important in regards to number of wells and total production of water. but emphasis is to be placed on obtaining wide-ranging information about the regularity of the three lift methods as well as obtaining exact purchase prices for the pump systems. while the final Chapters. 10 and 11. Information about costs (Opex and Capex) is to be gathered. Introduction As the Statfjord field approaches the limit for maximum oil recovery. The thesis starts with a literature review of artificial lift and an overview and presentation of the Statfjord field. According to the literature. a new plan for petroleum production has been laid. the most suitable artificial lift has to be selected. Overall pumping efficiencies are to be reported and plotted against operational costs (Opex).Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. pumping of deep water is to be conducted. To accomplish this. but also water originally injected as injection water for pressure support. The field is to be converted from mainly producing oil to mainly produce gas. the reservoir pressure has to be reduced significantly. In order to enhance the gas production. there are three offshore applicable artificial lift systems available. June 2007 1. Gas Lift and ESP. at least. Chapters 8 and 9 contain estimates of Capex and Opex. temperatures and power requirements. In Chapter 5. contain the discussion and conclusion. For successful accomplishment of this operation. Drawing the reservoir pressure below the bubble point pressure of the oil will proportionally increase the release of dissolved gas from the residual oil. the gas trapped in the residual reservoir oil is to be released and produced. 6 and 7 sizing and calculation of power requirements and efficiencies are conducted. To accelerate pressure drawdown. pressures. 1 .

The requirement for artificial lift systems are usually presented later in a field’s life. In clear cut cases. Artificial Lift Literature Survey 2. others require artificial lift to get started and will then proceed to flow on natural lift.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. In any of these cases.. In more complex situations. This requires the involvement of a number of parties. the problem is usually not present. when reservoir pressure decline and well productivity drop.1 When is artificial lift required The objective of any artificial lift system is to add energy to the produced fluids. June 2007 2. it may be advantageous to install the artificial lift equipment up front and use it to accelerate production throughout the field’s life. the energy is not transferred to the reservoir. in the compressed fluid itself and in the rock. 1998) 2 . designing and optimising an artificial lift system can be a comprehensive and difficult exercise. either to accelerate or to enable production. which are common in the North Sea. others yet may not flow at all on natural flow. (Jahn et al. All reservoirs contain energy in the form of pressure. This is commonly known as pressure maintenance. from sub-surface engineering to production operations. If a situation is anticipated where artificial lift will be required or will be cost effective later in a field’s life. Some wells may simply flow more efficiently on artificial lift. Pressure can be artificially maintained or enhanced by injecting gas or water into the reservoir. the cost of the artificial lift system must be compared to the gained production and increased income. such as on-shore stripper wells where the bulk of the operating costs are the lifting costs. due to the overburden. Artificial lift systems distinguish themselves from pressure maintenance by adding energy to the produced fluids in the well.

wells with high viscosity. The Electrical Submersible Pump has. it is a relatively inefficient lift method. the hydraulic efficiency for the Jet Pump is considerable lower than for the ESP. As attempted to illustrate later in this thesis. 1998) and Figure 1. The Jet Pump has many advantages towards other artificial lift systems. using a Jet Pump as the artificial lift solution will also bring disadvantages. use of Electrical Submersible Pumps has its disadvantages. a high hydraulic efficiency. high paraffin.2 Comparison of offshore-applicable artificial lift methods Referring to the book “Hydrocarbon exploration and production” (Jahn et al. the pump requires high surface power fluid pressure. which is an important factor when considering number of well interventions and making Opex-estimates. The Jet Pump also requires at least 20% submergence to approach best lift efficiency and is very sensitive to changes in backpressure. the pump can be replaced without pulling the tubing (casing type installation) and it consists of few parts. First and foremost. The lifetime of these pumps are difficult to estimate. Also. Other great advantages of the Jet Pump are that water can be used as power fluid and that the power source can be remotely located and can handle high volume rates. directional wells. subsea production wells. As seen in Figure 1. finally based on operational and investment costs towards gained production. the pump is tolerant not only of corrosive and abrasive well fluids. Electrical Submersible Pump and Gas Lift. It is also expensive to change equipment to match 3 .. June 2007 2. high sand content. Lifting costs for high volumes are generally very low and the pumps are simple to operate. They are available in a broad range of sizes to accommodate most types of well conditions and completions. but also of various power fluids. can handle free gas and are applicable offshore. These are Jet Pump. the selection of artificial lift system for a given case is a result of careful evaluation. Maintenance and repair are infrequent and inexpensive. However. There are no moving parts. there are three artificial lift methods considered feasible for offshore installations. crooked wells. Also. the pump allows a relatively low pureness of the power fluid. But. and particularly for wells with relatively high GOR. The pumps are suitable for deep wells.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. relatively to the two other artificial lift methods presented here. Hydraulic Jet Pumps are adaptable to all existing hydraulic pump bottomhole assemblies.

ESP systems are only applicable with electrical power. Also. lift gas may not always be available and high pressure gas may create safety problems. June 2007 declining well capability.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. It can not effectively produce deep wells to abandonment. A diffuser then converts the kinetic energy of the mixture into pressure. Further. The author concludes that the two lifting methods will approach each other in performance for increasing water cut. A high-pressure driving fluid (“power fluid”) is ejected through a nozzle. 2. However. and has multiple advantages towards the other lift systems. and that ESP tends to become equally advantageous at later stages in the field life. and high voltages are necessary for ESP operation. 1988) 4 .3 Jet Pump principles Jet Pumps operate on the principle of the venturi tube. Gas Lift has its drawbacks. this indicates that gas lifting is most advantageous at low to medium water cut. The last artificial lift method reviewed in this thesis is the Gas Lift. This is a widely used artificial lift method. Gas Lift can handle large volume of solids with minor problems and lift gassy wells better than ESP and Jet Pump. In fields where both methods for artificial lift are technically feasible. corrosion is not usually as adverse. where pressure is converted to velocity head. (Brown. Gas Lift also has problems lifting emulsions and viscous crudes. (Jiao. 1982) A power analysis of ESP towards Gas Lift was conducted at NTNU in 1990 by Espen Andreassen and presented in the diploma thesis “Power Analysis of Offshore Artificial Lift – Electrical Submersible Pumping and Gas Lift Compared”. It is referred to Figure 2 and Figure 3 for a list of relative advantages and disadvantages for the three mentioned artificial lift methods. Gas Lift can handle large volumes in high PI-wells and the power source can be remotely located. allowing the mixed fluids to flow to the surface through the return conduit. The high velocity – low pressure jet flow draws the production fluid into the pump throat where both fluid mix.

power fluid pressure declines while the velocity increases. driven directly by a downhole electric motor. As seen in the Figure. Power fluid and production fluid mix in the throat. or increase. ESP design concerns itself primarily with choosing the right type of pump.4 Gas lift principles Gas lift is the continuous or intermittent injection of gas into the lower section of the production tubing to sustain. The ESP’s output is more or less pre-determined by the type and number of pump stages. and pressure starts to increase while velocity decreases. In the diffuser. the pressure of the mixed fluid increases significantly. a multistage centrifugal pump. and thus the flow rate. a junction box. to be changed. hence increasing or sustaining production. The performance of the system is monitored primarily by the use of an ampere meter.5 ESP principles The electric submersible pump is an advanced multistage centrifugal pump. June 2007 Figure 4 illustrates the principle.. The injected gas is commingled with the produced fluids. a variable speed drive can be installed to allow the motor speed. 2. an electrical cable. well potential. Additional miscellaneous components include means of securing the cable alongside the tubing and wellhead supports. thereby decreasing the flowing gradient. Changes in well productivity are hard to accommodate. 5 .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. and transformers. enabling wells to be operated at reduced flowing bottomhole pressure. 1993). a surface-installed switchboard. when power fluid enters the nozzle. a seal section. the optimal number of stages. 2. an intake section. measuring motor load. A typical submersible pumping unit consists of an electric motor. In gas lift. the additional work required to increase the production rate of the well is performed at the surface by a gas compressor or contained in a high pressure gas stream conveyed to the well in the form of gas pressure energy (Forero et al. At significant additional cost. and the corresponding motor size to ensure a smooth functionality of the system. The low pressure power fluid draws the production fluid into the throat. while the velocity decreases in inverse ratio.

Power is transmitted to the subsurface equipment through a three-conductor electric cable. June 2007 The electric motor turns at a relatively constant speed.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. 1998) Figure 6 illustrates an example of ESP configuration. (Jahn et al. 6 .. showing a typical ESP well installation. which is strapped to the tubing. both downhole and topside. The fluid enters the pump at the intake section and is discharged into the tubing in which the unit is run into the well (Figure 5). and the pump and the motor are directly coupled with a protector or seal section in between.

June 2007 3. are divided by the Dunlin Group which mainly consists of shale.. In addition. 7 . converting the production and production facilities from oil to gas. The field is developed with three concrete platforms. The Statfjord Field Following is a short presentation of the Statfjord Field. The Main Field which contains 85% of the STOIIP consists of a rotated fault block with the Brent Group and Statfjord Formation reservoirs. containing a general field overview as well as an introduction to the planned re-development of the field. 2005) Geographical map for the Statfjord field and an overview illustration of the Tampen area can be found as Figure 7 and Figure 8. members of the Brent Group and Statfjord Formation. Geology The Statfjord Field is located on a late Jurassic rotated fault block. The field is a part of the Tampen Area. It is located northwest of Bergen. The two main reservoir sandstone units. and is approximately 27 km long and 4 km wide with a STOIIP (Stock Tank Oil Initially In Place) of approximately 1 billion Sm3 and an estimated ultimate recovery factor for oil of 68%. approximately 180 kilometres off the Norwegian coast. (Boge et al. It has a dip of approximately 6-7 degrees towards west-northwest.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. it is heavy faulted with internal faults and small scale structures making reservoir mapping challenging. The structure and stratigraphy of the East Flank is complex. Statfjord Nord and Sygna) and the Snorre Field are connected to the Statfjord Field facilities. The East Flank consists of slump fault blocks generated by gravitational failure at the crest of the field. 3. straddling the UK – Norwegian line. where each platform is a combined drilling and production unit. the Statfjord satellite fields (Statfjord Øst. The Brent Group is divided in Upper and Lower Brent.1 Field overview The Statfjord field is the largest producing oil field inn Europe in terms of recoverable reserves.

and the annual oil production plateau rate at 120 000 Sm3/day was reached in 1985. oil production started declining to the current oil production level. and the remaining economic oil reserves with the current drainage strategy are estimated to 27 million Sm3. Production history Production on the Statfjord Field started in 1979. 8 . After eight years on plateau production. In addition to remaining oil volumes. A high focus on keeping drilling costs and well interventions costs low have allowed for an aggressive drilling strategy and a high well intervention activity level. 2005) Figure 9 shows a stratigraphic column for the formations. either as gas dissolved in the remaining oil or as free gas injected as pressure maintenance. Upper Statfjord has been drained by miscible gas injection resulting in very high recovery. Lower Statfjord is developed by downdip water injection assisted by limited WAG injection. with some restrictions as one move to the east of the field. Plateau production was dominated by production from the Main Field followed by development of the more complex East Flank and drainage of sands with poorer reservoir quality after water breakthrough. The resent years. June 2007 The communication from the Main Field to the East Flank is generally good. resulting in reduced field decline and improved recovery. Since 1996. The primary drainage strategy for the Brent Group has been down flank water injection. (Boge et al.. the annual activity level on the field has been as high as 15-20 sidetracks and approximately 50 well interventions.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. pressure in Upper Statfjord has been maintained by gas assisted updip water injection. substantial gas volumes exist in the reservoirs. which is about 20 000 Sm3/day.. (Boge et al. About 635 million Sm3 of oil has been produced since production startup. 2005) Current drainage strategy The current drainage strategy for the Statfjord Field is pressure maintenance by water and gas injection into the main reservoirs: the Brent Group and the Statfjord Formation.

as it has very limited potential.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. produced gas has been used for pressure maintenance.2 Presentation of the planned re-development of Statfjord The new production strategy is to convert the Statfjord field from mainly producing oil to mainly produce gas. the sales gas reserves are 74 GSm3. from where it will be produced. Active depressurization is not planned for the Dunlin reservoir. With the current oil profile. and the ultimate recovery is expected to be about 68%. This conversion requires depressurization of the reservoir to release the incremental solution gas from the residual oil. gas export was expected to end late 2007. fuel and flare.. created as a result of gas injection. Gas production from the Statfjord Formation will primarily be from existing. It is referred to Figure 10 for an illustration of the depressurization process. Without change in drainage strategy. The change in drainage and production strategy. operation of the field is expected to become marginal around 2010. The gas will then migrate towards the crest. from pressure maintenance to depressurization. gas will be released from the remaining oil. By implementation of the new drainage strategy. (Boge et al. phased on each platform according to the planned shutdowns in 2007. the additional revenue from gas exports allows for extension of the production period until 20182020. will require an extensive pressure reduction in both the Brent Group and the Statfjord Formation. From the Figure it can be seen that as reservoir pressure falls below bubble point pressure. presented in Chapter 3. The current recovery factor of oil is about 65%. In addition to export.2. Most of this gas is currently trapped in the water flooded zone due to large amounts of water injected through production history. June 2007 With the current drainage strategy. 9 . 2005) 3. This gas will expand and become mobile as reservoir pressure drops. of which 68 GSm3 have already been exported. Injection of water and gas is planned to be stopped in 2007. secondary gas caps.

180 and 157 Sm3/ Sm3. the total reservoir pressure will decline. Due to this fact.. The Brent Group will then gradually take over as main gas supplier when the reservoir pressure drops below bubble point pressure and gas is liberated from the oil in Brent. 2005) Figure 11 illustrates the expected water production profile and reservoir pressure decline versus time for the Brent Group. (Boge et al. respectively). while it was 200 bar in the Statfjord Formation. By reversing this injection process. 4 wells should be drilled and completed the first and second year. water and WAG as injection methods. pumping of aquifer and injection water is to be conducted. pumping water out of the reservoir. respectively. 1998. using gas. Electrical Submersible Pumps (ESP) and Jet Pumps. June 2007 During the first years of depressurization. and ideally produce continuous throughout the field’s life. The wells are to be drilled sequential. gas will be liberated from the residual oil and migrate towards the top of the reservoir. When reaching the bubble point pressure for the two reservoirs (200 bar and 270 bar for the Statfjord Formation and the Brent Group. Initial bubble point pressure for oil in the Brent Group was 270 bar. the reservoir pressure-trend assumptions may vary in accuracy. Reviewed in this paper is the most relevant artificial lift methods for downhole offshore use today: Gas Lift. 2005) 3. Accordingly. allowing it to be produced by gas-lift wells as seen in the planned depressurization process shown in Figure 10. The Brent Group and Statfjord Formation have relatively similar initial GOR values...Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. the Statfjord Formation will provide the majority of the produced gas. (Jahn et al.3 Pumping of water to accelerate pressure drawdown To enable the depressurization of the two reservoir-formations. running instant production start-up after well completion. while the remaining two wells will be finished the following year. suitable downhole pumps have to be selected from a variety of different technologies and suppliers. ten wells will be operative from approximately late 2012. Boge et al. The field operator has planned ten water production wells in the Brent Group. An important note is that the reservoir pressure calculations are complex and the pressure profile difficult to pre-determine. The estimated reservoir pressure development is based on both water production from the aquifer wells as well as oil/gas/water production from the gas lifted wells on the top of the formation. 10 . For this project. Pressure maintenance has been applied throughout the field’s life.

Figure 11 is based on data supplied and approved by Statoil ASA. 11 .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. June 2007 Figure 11 shows a plot of the expected water production profile and reservoir pressure decline versus time for the Brent Group. The base-case data used for calculations in this thesis are extracted from this plot.

which can be written as: Useful effect = .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. The definition used in this thesis is presented in the paper “New and Expected Developments in Artificial Lift” (Lea. acceleration and retardation of the fluid and the change of the fluid flow direction. this can be a sufficient indicator for the artificial lift efficiency. mathematically expressed as: (1) Output effect is equal to the useful effect. 1994). Calculations are conducted for three cases.F.W. Case B and Case C. A common measure for artificial lift efficiency is the hydraulic efficiency. In general. The input effect is the required effect of the topside pump/compressor/generator enabling the artificial lift system to deliver the given production. a more extensive efficiency (overall efficiency) should be used. J.. Hydraulic loss relates to the construction of the pump or fan. representing the depressurization phase for the Brent group at an early. middle and late stage. (2) where Q is the flowing production volume flow rate in Sm3/s and delta P is the pressure increase through the pump in Pascal. with a reservoir pressure at 250 bar.. and is caused by the friction between the fluid and the walls. To establish a definition of the overall efficiency of artificial lift. which depends on the degree of hydraulic loss. Case Description The main purpose of the calculations in the following Chapters is to establish comparable values for artificial lift efficiency. The paper defines the artificial lift efficiency as output effect divided to input effect. Winkler H. Case A. Case A includes one well producing at 5000 Sm3/d. but when comparing different artificial lift methods for a specific case. one must establish a definition of the useful work that an artificial lift system performs. June 2007 4. It is assumed that all three artificial lift systems have the same gas turbine generating the power demanded topside. Case 12 . respectively.

June 2007 B is the middle stage production (year 2015). For tubing. with a reservoir pressure on 70 bar. well pressures and temperatures. pump setting depth.1. The Tables consists of casing dimensions. In this thesis. 2 and 3. and can be found as Table 1. with 10 wells producing at 3750 Sm3/d and a reservoir pressure at 100 bar. generating performance curves and control calculations. The optimal tubing sizes for the different lift methods are determined in each Chapter. the “Beggs and Brill”-correlation is selected for tubing and casing-tubing annular flow and pressure drop calculations. Case C is the late stage production (year 2020). the process simulator HYSYS is used for compressor-effect calculations in Chapter 6. For the correlation used to calculate pressure drop and flow through vales and orifices it is referred to Chapter 6. the wells are in this thesis assumed to be vertical. PROSPER is also used for gas lift design. with the same TVD as the ones planned by the operator. The following Chapters contain the application of the three artificial lift systems for Case A. For these calculations. and compared altogether in the discussion part at the end of the thesis. Figure 12 illustrates one water producer on natural lift at various reservoir pressures (dead well). with 10 wells producing at 2500 Sm3/d. production flow rates and fluid properties. productivity index. The Figure shows that the lower the natural reservoir drive. the well performance program PROSPER is used. B and C. the higher the demand for artificial lift performance. Finally. For simplicity. valve and annulus flow and pressure drop calculations. This makes it easier to compare the different artificial lift methods and to establish and compare overall efficiencies. published in the Journal of Petroleum Technology in 1973. Well and reservoir data are gathered from Statoil ASA. Calculation results are briefly discussed individually in each Chapter.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. The production wells are planned to be deviated wells. the program contains several correlations. Also. The correlation is presented in the paper “A study of Two-Phase Flow in Inclined Pipes”. 13 .

Qp 14 . Following is a short presentation of the model and its main principles. The dimensionless mass flow ratio. as a function of dimensionless mass flow ratio. Pi is the pump intake pressure in bar and Pp is the power fluid pressure in bar. N. The model is based on experimental studies conducted at Tulsa University.1 Presentation of Jet pump model The model selected for the Jet Pump calculations is originally presented in the thesis “Performance Model for Hydraulic Jet Pumping of Two-Phase Fluids” by Baohua Jiao from 1988. M. Mathematically it is defined as follows: N Pd Pp Pi . N.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. M. For further review and calculation examples of the model it is referred to the project “Review and Application of the Tulsa Liquid Jet Pump Model” from 2006 by the author of this thesis. between the suction (producing) fluid and the power fluid is defined as: M mint ake mnozzle Qi Qp Qi . and is a further development of the model presented in his master thesis “Behaviour of Hydraulic Jet Pumps When Handling a Gas-Liquid Mixture” from 1985. Application of Jet Pump 5. For the model derivation in its entirety it is referred to Appendix A in the above mentioned project. The main purpose of the model is to predict pressure recovery. The dimensionless pressure recovery. Pd (3) where Pd is the pump discharge pressure in bar. June 2007 5. The model will hereafter be called the Tulsa model. is the pressure increase over the pump divided by the pressure difference between the drive fluid and the pump discharge.

it is referred to Appendix A of “Review and Application of the Tulsa Liquid Jet Pump Model” (Pedersen.227 Qia represents the gas mass flow. two component elements are defined: B 2R (1 2 R )( M 2 R 2 ) /(1 R ) 2 C R 2 (1 M ) 2 . For further description and derivation of the term. Qp is the volume flow rate of power fluid through pump in Sm3/s and ρ is the liquid density in kg/Sm3.J. where mintake is the mass flow rate through pump intake in kg/s. mnozzle is the mass flow rate through the nozzle exit in kg/s. Explained mathematically: Efficiency N M (5) The model uses a functional form of N f (M ) that is based on work by Cunningham (1974). where R is the ratio of the nozzle to throat area and M is the mass flow ratio. This includes both liquid and gas. June 2007 for one phase flow. P.227 . assuming equal density for the two fluids.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. 2006).. Simplifying the typing of this function. Qp (4) where Qi and Qp are the same as defined for equation (3). who developed this function on mass energy conservation principles. it is shown that N can be written: 15 . the mass flow ratio can be expressed as: M Qi Qia 1. Referring to Appendix A in the mentioned project by Pedersen (2006). The numerator in the above equation describes the total producing fluid mass flow. where the term 1. Qi is the volume flow rate at pump intake in Sm3/s. Extended to include gas. The product of the two parameters N and M is the ratio of the transferred useful power to consumed input power.

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.1.1 (10. This value was estimated in the Tulsa thesis from optimization based on high pressure data. The analysis was done by a computer program. The expression is presented as: K td 0. In the above expression of N. respectively. the importance of the loss parameters is obvious. 16 . respectively. equivalent to GOR in a gas-oil system.33 ( AWR ) 0.04. performing a multiple linear least squares regression on the logarithms of the variables R. K n .88 * 10 3 )( R p ) 2. R p is the ratio of the discharge pressure to the power fluid pressure and AWR is the air-water ratio. as AWR=0. K td is a combination of the loss parameter for the throat K t and the diffuser K d . June 2007 N B (1 K td )C .33 (7) where R is the ratio of the nozzle to throat area. The nozzle loss parameter. the right side of the equation simplifies to the constant 0. (1 K n ) B (1 K td )C (6) where K n and K td are the dimensionless pressure-loss coefficients for the nozzle and throatdiffuser. R p and AWR (Air-Water-Ratio). For single-phase flow. is in the Tulsa model set to 0. The equation for K td was developed using regression analysis.63 R 0.

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. manufacturers of Jet Pumps have made a wide range of nozzles and throats available (Figure 15). For further description of factors to control pump performance. as long as the pump physically fits in the tubing and the casing-tubing annulus is large enough to conduct the total returning fluid flow. June 2007 5.2 Jet Pump performance 5. especially when producing free gas. leads to higher pump discharge pressure and therefore higher production flow rate. Also. 1988) and Chapter 4 of the earlier mentioned project (Pedersen. it is referred to the thesis “Performance model for hydraulic jet pumping of two phase fluids” (Jiao.2.1 Main factors to control pump performance For a pump with a given nozzle/throat relation. where the 17 . The nozzle/throat relation and its influence on pump performance are discussed in the following Chapter. one of the main factors to control the Jet Pump performance is the injection rate of the power fluid.. the injection pressure is also an important factor when considering Jet Pump performance. Due to this fact.2. the pressure of the injected power fluid can be varied. P.J.2 Jet Pump sizing Dimensioning a jet pump is an important part of a jet pump installation process. 5. 2006) by the author of this thesis. The nozzle/throat relation Jet Pump performance is well specific and careful selection of the nozzle/throat combination is therefore necessary to ensure optimum well performance. another consideration is that a minimum area of throat annulus is required to avoid cavitation. Tubing size has little or no influence on the Jet Pump performance. at fixed injection pressure. As illustrated in Figure 13. Following is a description of these two important elements of Jet Pump sizing. As shown. an increase in the injection flow rate. Figure 14 shows performance curves for different injection pressures. The nozzle/throat combination defines the degree of pump optimization and performance. keeping the injection flow rate constant.

if a throat is selected such that the area of the nozzle is 60% of the throat area. D…. 1983. This is referred to as an A ratio. this is a A combination (by some manufacturers also referred to as an X combination). 1989) 18 .. June 2007 optimum combination represents a compromise between maximum oil production and minimum power fluid rates. R. For a given nozzle. A specific nozzle/throat combination is defined by a number. Because of geometric considerations. A given nozzle (N) matched to the same number throat (N) will always give the same area ratio. Allan et al. In general. Shallow wells with low lifts are candidates for such a pump. application of successively smaller throats is not suitable. But since the nozzle energy is being transferred to a large amount of production compared to the power fluid rate. followed by a character which defines the throat size. B. For example. This is explained in the paper “Jet Pumping Oil Wells” by Petrie et.ratios represent throats with number N+1. more production flow is possible.. For example a 10A combination refers to a 10/10 nozzle/throat combination. a relatively high head. C. There is a comparatively small area around the jet for well fluids to enter. while for instance the C ratio is for low lift and high relative production rates. which refers to the nozzle size. N+2 and N+3 respectively. (Petrie et al. Such a pump is suited to deep wells with high lifts. leading to low production rates compared to the power fluid rate. The different configurations of the nozzle/throat relation are given in Figure 16. It is possible to match a given nozzle with a throat which is one size smaller. can be established. fixed area ratios between nozzles and throats. a 12B a 12/13 combination and so on (Figure 16). the areas of nozzles and throats increase in geometric progression.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. The A (X)-ratio is for high lift and low production rates compared with the power fluid rate. high heads will be developed. Because of this. Conversely. low flow pump will result. R. and with the energy of the nozzle being transferred to a small amount of production. if a throat is selected such that the area of the nozzle is only 20% of the throat area.al (1983): Physical nozzle and throat sizes determine flow rates while the ratio of their flow areas determines the trade off between produced head and flow rate. lower heads will be developed.

(Grupping et al. 2006). 1989. pressure must remain above liquid-vapour pressure to prevent throat cavitation damage. This area decides the velocity of the fluid. 1988). one of the most important factors is to avoid cavitation. for a given production flow rate and a given pump intake pressure. If pressure drops below the liquid-vapour pressure. This low pressure can cause cavitation. the higher velocity of the fluid. P. so any lowering of pressure means that more gas will come out of the solution. The cavitation phenomenon is caused by the collapse of these gas bubbles on the throat surface as the pressure increases along the jet pump axis (Figure 17). it is saturated with gas. the nozzle and throat combination must be carefully selected.J. This collapse of vapour bubbles may cause erosion known as cavitation damage and will decrease the jet pump performance.. The smaller flow area. Christ. 19 . This procedure was converted from field to SI-units in the paper “Review and Application of the Tulsa Liquid Jet Pump Model” (Pedersen. Within the throat. The nozzle and throat flow areas define an annular flow passage at the throat entrance. and therefore the fluid pressure. Note that pressure drops below pump-intake pressure as produced fluids accelerate into the throat mixing zone. In order to maintain the throat entrance pressure above the liquid-vapour pressure.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. the fluid pressure will decrease and vica verca. Petrie et al. Petrie. When oil reaches the bubble point. The static pressure of the fluid drops as the square of the velocity increase and will reach the vapour pressure of the fluid at high velocities. From fluid mechanics we have the Bernoulli equation that states that as the fluid velocity increase. Thus. In the following Chapter. The throat entrance pressure is controlled by the velocity of the produced fluid passing through it. the SI-edition of this calculation procedure is used. there will be a minimum annular flow area required to avoid cavitation. vapour bubbles will form. 1983) A step-by-step guide for sizing hydraulic Jet Pumps is presented in the Tulsa thesis (Jiao. Cavitation can damage the Jet Pump. 1988. June 2007 Cavitation and sizing of throat entrance area When sizing a hydraulic Jet Pump for multiphase flow. and the throat in particular..

This is further discussed in Chapter 9. according to the drawdown plan presented in Figure 11. flowing at 5000 Sm3/d.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. The pump supplier is selected to be “Kobe” (Figure 15). For economic and practical purposes.2. processed water with a gravity of 1000 kg/Sm3 is chosen. For comparison.3 Model calculations Jet Pump model calculations have been conducted for three cases: 1 well producing at 5000 Sm3/d (Case A) and 10 wells producing at 3750 Sm3/d (Case B) and 2500 Sm3/d (Case C) each. useful effect is written as: Useful effect = where . The calculations are enclosed as Appendix A. is the pressure increase over the pump. The Jet Pump efficiency calculated in Appendix A is the total hydraulic efficiency. Inflow and tubing performance curves for the Jet Pump cases are shown in Figure 18. a free Jet Pump is chosen. 16E for Case A. Table 1. June 2007 5. 3 contains well data for the three cases. The calculations presented here represent the optimal combinations found. 20 . and the casing-tubing annulus is selected as the return conduit. 3750 Sm3/d and 2500 Sm3/d respectively. 2. The efficiency/power relations for the various combinations are found in Figure 21. Figure 22 and Figure 23. Data tables for the PROSPER-generated curves are enclosed as Table 7. These combinations are marked in the mentioned Figures. The calculations in Appendix A were performed using different nozzle/throat combinations. 16E for Case B and 19B for Case C. using Equation (1) and (2): As defined in Chapter 4. the efficiency calculation method introduced in Chapter 4 is also applied. 8 and 9. representing one well each. Figure 19 and Figure 20. For power fluid.

1 % and a topside power requirement on 1820 kW. Overall Jet Pump efficiency: The total required input effect for all 10 wells are: 4006 kW x 10 = 40. Overall Jet Pump efficiency: The results are further discussed in the next Chapter. Pump intake pressure is 85 bar (step 23). Delta P for the given production is ~ 96 bar. Case B: Referring to Appendix A. Case B calculations gave a hydraulic efficiency of 27.4 % and a topside power requirement on 4006 kW per well. June 2007 The calculations in Appendix A for Case A gave a hydraulic efficiency of 33. the efficiency calculation method introduced in Chapter 4 is also applied. Appendix A). The discharge pressure is calculated to be 324 bar (step 16 in the Case B calculations.06 MW 21 . using Equation (1) and (2). Delta P for the given production is ~ 239 bar.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Case A: NTNU. Pump intake pressure is 230 bar (step 23). The discharge pressure is calculated to be 326 bar (step 16 in the Case A calculations. As for Case A. Appendix A).

one should believe that the overall efficiency of a Jet Pump lift system was somewhat lower than the hydraulic efficiency of the Jet Pump itself. Delta P for the given production is ~ 266 bar. the difference is 1.6% for Case A.1% and an overall efficiency on 30. For Case B.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. calculating 27. Case C: Case C calculations gave a hydraulic efficiency of 28. The combined hydraulic efficiency of the Jet Pump and surface Power Fluid Pump was. 22 .5%. the efficiency calculation method introduced in Chapter 4 is also applied. higher than for the overall efficiency. As for Case A and B. Overall Jet Pump efficiency: The total required input effect for all 10 wells are: 3177 kW x 10 = 31. Appendix A).77 MW Results further discussed in next Chapter.5%. The discharge pressure is calculated to be 326 bar (step 16 in the Case C calculations. Pump intake pressure is 60 bar (step 23).8 % and a topside power requirement on 3177 kW per well. using Equation (1) and (2). The difference between hydraulic efficiency and overall efficiency is 2.4 Evaluation of results Intuitively. June 2007 Results further discussed in next Chapter. calculating a hydraulic efficiency on 33. In the calculations from the previous Chapter.4% and 25. 5.9% for hydraulic and overall efficiency. for all three cases. this is proven to be correct.

23 . Figure 18 represents Case A for Jet Pump. the calculated difference between the two efficiency measures is 4. one well flowing at 3750 Sm3/d.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. one well flowing at 2500 Sm3/d. The relatively large difference for Case C is probably due to a fairly high friction pressure loss in the power fluid tubing. B and C. it is seen that the results for all three cases falls within the expected efficiency range. PROSPER was used to generate performance curves for the cases using Jet Pump. while the blue line is the IPR curve and the red line represents the tubing intake pressure curve. Comparing the hydraulic efficiency calculations for Jet Pump (Appendix A) with the typical Jet Pump hydraulic efficiency range presented in Chapter 2. Figure 19 represents Case B for Jet Pump. Unfortunately.2 (Figure 1). For Case C. The closest values to the nozzle/throat configuration used here were selected in PROSPER. Referring to the above mentioned Figures. and finally Figure 20 represents Case C. June 2007 respectively. one well flowing at 5000 Sm3/d.3. which affects the overall efficiency.2%. This indicates that the calculations and results for the Jet Pump option should be fairly reasonable.6%. none of the nozzle/throat combinations found in PROSPER were equal to the ones selected in Chapter 5. the pump discharge pressure curve is represented by the black line. The hydraulic efficiency is 28.8% while the overall efficiency is 24. and some variables were adjusted so that the performance curves should represent the Jet Pump calculations for Case A.

Gas is less dense than the normal production fluids. (8) 24 . The equation form of this flow-behaviour model can be written as: . For gas lift. For flow through valves and orifices. the program uses the “Thornhill-Craver”-model. PROSPER was used.. H.1 Presentation of Gas lift model The main task of a gas lift system is to reduce the weight of the producing fluid column. The model is presented in the paper “Report on the Calibration of Positive Flow Beans as Manufactured by Thornhill-Craver Company Inc.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.” by Cook. the “Beggs and Brill”-correlation (Beggs. Gas lift design includes pressure drop calculations for annulus. and Dotterweich. Brill. 1973) is used for computing tubing and casing-tubing annulus pressure loss.. Another important aspect of gas lift design is to estimate the effect and dimensions of the surface compressors required to deliver the gas lift-gas at the wellhead with a given casing pressure. tubing and valves.3 is the same as presented in Chapter 4.H. 1994) defines the useful effect (work/time) as . The denominator of the gas lift efficiency equation will be the required effect of the surface gas compressor. The method for calculating the total efficiency of a gas lift system used in Chapter 6. J. J. the casing/tubing size. the valve-setting. where delta P is equal to the pressure at the perforations with no gas lift system minus the pressure at the perforations with a gas lift system. The efficiency of the total gas lift is mainly depending on the efficiency of the topside process-systems. the density of the producing fluid and the pressure conditions in the well. As for the other artificial lift calculations. represented by equation (1) and (2). June 2007 6.L. For pressure loss and flow calculations. H.F. accordingly will injection of gas in the production tubing result in a lowering of density in the total producing fluid.W.P. the paper “New and Expected Developments in Artificial Lift” (Lea. Application of Gas Lift 6.. the composition of the lift-gas.D. F. Winkler. H. from 1946.

Ap is the port area in square inches. (9) where W is work in J/mole. r is the pressure ratio between production pressure and injection pressure in psig. (10) where P is effect in J/s (Watt). For the compression effect the following equation was used: .. and how they interact. p1 is the inlet pressure in Pa. In ”Artificial Lift Manual Part 2A – Gas Lift Design Guide” (Forero et al. adiabatic compression is assumed. gas lift performance and design 25 .2.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. For the compressor calculations. Sg is the specific gravity of the injected gas. June 2007 where qgi is the volumetric flow rate of gas through the orifice given in Mscf/D. For the compressor-calculations. The effect calculations are based on the equation for the adiabatic compression: . m is mass flow in kg/s and M is kg/mole. in addition to the equations presented above. It is of vital importance that the designer has a thorough understanding of the different physical processes involved.2 Gas lift performance 6. Cd is an experimental determined discharge coefficient. Piod describes the gas orifice injection pressure in psig. the process engineering program HYSYS was used as well as manual calculations. 1993). HYSYS uses. 6. p2 is the discharge pressure in Pa. k is the ratio of specific heats (Cp/Cv). an adiabatic efficiency of 85% (user input).1 Main factors to control gas lift performance Many factors influence the total gas lift performance and have to be considered when sizing and designing a gas lift system in order to match system performance to reservoir deliverability. and Tv is the temperature of the injection gas at the orifice. v1 is an expression for gas-volume/mole with the units m3/mole and k is the ratio of specific heats (Cp/Cv).

the well and the surface facilities: Reservoir performance Reservoir performance (drive mechanism and fluid properties). which yields the lowest possible flowing bottomhole pressure. June 2007 considerations are divided into three component parts: the reservoir. obviating the need for later well intervention. In general. The quantity of associated gas produced in the wellbore is a function of a number of factors (drawdown. Injection depth and valve spacing is further discussed in Chapter 6. the blue line represents the flowing gradient. this will enhance the total injection volume of gas required. Such parameters will change with time. and therefore the maximum drawdown and production rate. 26 . The determination of the amount of free gas likely to be produced is crucial to determine the flowing-pressure gradient which is directly related to the optimum gas injection volume. particularly the timing of installation. In this way the entire vertical fluid column is less dense. Referring to the Figure.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. and the red line represents the injection gas gradient. usually represent the largest uncertainty associated with artificial lift design. 1993) Figure 24 illustrates the effect of gas injection on the flowing pressure gradient. Density will increase as the light components of the oil/gas solution are produced as free gas. Another important aspect of gas lift performance is the depth of the injection gas. bubble point pressure and natural GLR). (Forero et al. The interception point for the lines give the maximum depth of injection for the given gas injection pressure (casing pressure). and is a significant parameter in gas lift system design.2. A great advantage of gas lift in this case is that the downhole equipment can be installed with the original completion at very minor additional cost.. hence reliable forecast are required to assess the effect on artificial lift performance/selection.2. Following. Production of free gas will affect the total density of the fluid column. optimum lift conditions are achieved when gas is injected at the bottom of the production conduit.

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Well performance

NTNU, June 2007

In high PI wells, where small changes in drawdown have a large effect on production, significant gains can be realised by maximizing lift-gas injection depth, the converse is also true however for low PI wells.

Naturally, inflow performance has a great influence on the total gas lift performance, as the natural flowing bottomhole pressure decides the amount and pressure necessary for the injection gas. This is illustrated in Figure 25, where gas lift injection pressure and injection flow rate is kept constant while the reservoir pressure decline. As illustrated, the well will stop flowing as the reservoir pressure falls below a minimum pressure required for the well to flow.

For the vertical lift performance during gas lift, tubing size is a very important factor. Installing a too small tubing will result in excessive friction losses. However, a too large tubing will cause unstable flow. This can only be corrected (partially) by increased volumes of lift-gas.

Figure 26 shows an example of gas-lift performance curves representing different tubing sizes. All other variables are fixed. The Figure shows that a small tubing diameter results in a low production flow rate, which is a consequence of high friction pressure loss in the production tubing. It is shown that by increasing the tubing diameter, the production flow rate will increased.

Low wellhead back pressure is also of prime importance, as it allows increased drawdown and enhances the efficiency of the gas lift. A high back pressure also results in closer valve spacing and shallower injection. Figure 27 illustrates the influence of the required wellhead pressure. The Figure contains five different tubing intake curves, representing wellhead back pressures from 5 to 30 bara. Referring to the Figure, it is obvious that the wellhead pressure has a large influence on the gas lift performance, as lower wellhead pressure leads to lower bottomhole pressure required for a given production flow rate, or alternatively, a higher production flow rate at the same bottomhole pressure.

Another factor of consideration is emulsions. Emulsions are common in gas lift operations, and can result in a significant increase in producing fluid viscosity, which will affect the lift 27

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord

NTNU, June 2007

performance considerable. Experience shows that emulsions are formed at the point of gas injection, and that emulsions behaviour can vary greatly from well to well. Usually, emulsions can be successfully eliminated, or at least considerably reduced by adding de-emulsifiers to the gas lift stream. (Forero et al., 1993)

Surface facilities Lift-gas volume and pressure have a vital influence on the gas lift performance. Lift-gas volume is the total lift-gas requirement for a field or group of wells, determined by adding individual well requirements. It is possible to inject too much gas into an individual well. Production will increase as a function of lift-gas volume until a point of maximum production is reached. Adding further quantities of gas beyond this point will decrease productivity as a result of the dominance of friction pressure.

Figure 28 shows an example of a Gas Lift performance curve. The x-axis represents injected GLR and the y-axis represents produced liquid. As seen, the plotted line has a point of maximum injection. Increasing gas injection beyond this point will clearly result in a decrease in productivity.

Keeping the injection pressure as high as possible will lead to higher production rates due to increased pressure drawdown as a result of being able to inject deeper. In general, if lifting takes place as deep as possible, less gas volume is required. Hence, from a power point of view it is more efficient to inject deep with a low IGLR (Injection Gas Liquid Ratio), than shallow with a high IGLR. The obvious disadvantage associated with high injection pressure is the need for more costly and high pressure rated equipment. However, in many cases, gas compression will be installed anyhow to facilitate gas export or re-injection. In these cases, the choice of lift pressure may be determined by other requirements. (Forero et al., 1993)

It is referred to Figure 29 for illustration of injection pressure influence on gas lift performance. The plot is made by varying the casing pressure while keeping the other variables fixed. The Figure shows that by increasing the injection pressure, production flow rate will increase.

The quality of the injected lift-gas is also an important factor regarding gas lift design and capacity. A rich (heavy) gas provides higher downhole pressure, and therefore allows a deeper 28

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord

NTNU, June 2007

injection depth for a given surface injection pressure compared to a less dense gas. On the other hand, lower volumes of lighter gas at a higher injection pressure may actually require less compression effect per unit volume of fluid produced. A possible problem with injecting rich gas is that heavier fractions may go back into solution with the produced fluid (oil).

Lift-gas supply must also be free from solids, when it passes through very small areas in gas lift valves which can be easily plugged. Rust, salt, scale or chemical residue should be prevented from accumulating in the system. Gas containing significant quantities of hydrogen sulphide (H2S) should also be avoided as it can cause severe operational problems such as corrosion, excessive compressor maintenance and fuel contamination.

The selection of compressor will naturally have a vital influence on the earlier mentioned liftgas pressure and compression capacity for the lift-gas volume flow. The main issue with compressor selection normally results from the disparity between the discharge pressure for well kick-off, and that required for continuous operation at the deepest injection point. This will be further highlighted in the next Chapter. (Forero et al., 1993)

6.2.2 Gas lift design
Gas lift system design is a complex and difficult event. In order to make a good gas lift design, multiple design factors must be taken into consideration, as presented in the previous Chapter. Gas lift design is a wide field, and a detailed description of a total gas lift system design is beyond the scope of this master thesis. For further and more detailed description of the art of gas lift design it is referred to the literature, and more specific the “Artificial Lift Manual Part 2A – Gas Lift Design Guide” (Forero et al., 1993).

For the calculations in Chapter 6.3, PROSPER is used to calculate gas lift performance and deliverability together with making gas lift string and valve design. Following is a presentation of the various steps and elements of gas-lift string and valve design:

For the string-design, adding equipment and increasing complexity of the string will also increase the chance that failure of one element will lead to shut-in and/or the need for well intervention. Having this in mind, the ideal situation is to provide sufficient topside gas pressure to enable gas injection at the optimum depth, so that no gas unloading valves are 29

30 . This allows the unloading valves to be independent of the production pressure at the expense of some injection depth. depending on the specific application. An illustration of the PPO and IPO valves are found as Figure 30. June 2007 required. For the Production Pressure Operated valves. the design can be either for Production Pressure Operated valves (PPO) or for Injection Pressure Operated valves (IPO). However. The valves are used to control the flow of lift. since the surface pressure requirements decrease when the well is on full gas lift. The gas lift valve is located in the gas lift mandrel. the gas injection at surface is kept constant since the valve operation is controlled by the produced fluid pressure. Maximum and operating gas injection pressures. A lower gas injection pressure should decrease the cost of the surface facilities – although it will increase the number of gas lift valves required. it is necessary to establish the relationship between the various parameters relevant to the design and economics of the project. This requires good knowledge of the produced fluid pressure at various valve levels in the well to enable correct valve setting and to achieve well stability. Attainable injection depth and corresponding production flow rate. Available gas injection volume. To develop the best possible design. this solution is generally too costly with regard to compression facilities. For the Injection Pressure Operated valves. This allows maximum utilisation of the available pressure to reach the deepest possible injection level. surface gas injection is decreased in steps to operate the gas lift valves. Operation of the gas lift valve is determined by preset opening and closing pressures in the tubing or annulus. Main parameters are: Well IPR and reservoir fluid properties. Optimum or attainable GLR. Diameter and length of the injection and production conduits. which also provides communication with the lift gas supply in the tubing annulus. The gas lift string must be designed for the specific type of completion and gas lift type selected.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.gas into the production tubing conduit. In this respect. unless these are already available.

using the gas lifted flowing gradient. until the inter-valve spacing equals the pre-set minimum. the required input is the same as for Casing Sensitive valves except that instead of entering the casing pressure drop to close valves. dependent on the user input: For mandrel spacing with IPO (Casing sensitive) valves. the valve depths are re-calculated to allow for the casing pressure drop to close valves. 31 .Pwellhead to close valves is required. Further unloading valves are placed by traversing down between the load fluid pressure gradient and the gas lifted tubing pressure gradient lines (calculated for the design gas lifted production rate). Following is a short introduction to the valve and mandrel spacing technique used by PROSPER. June 2007 The selection of the most suitable valve-type depends therefore on the specific well conditions and on the available injection gas rate and pressure.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. a pressure traverse is calculated from the wellhead and downwards. given the design rate and GLR injected. For casing sensitive valves. whichever is the shallower. or the maximum injection depth has been reached. This step establishes the flowing tubing pressure gradient to be used for valve spacing. PPO (Tubing sensitive) valves operate with a constant gas injection pressure and rely on increasing tubing pressure as the well unloads to close the unloading valve and transfer injection to lower valves. The shallowest unloading valve is placed at the depth which balances the tubing load fluid pressure with the casing pressure (minus a 3. the percentage Pcasing . PROSPER reduces the design rate if necessary and repeats the spacing exercise. The program uses two different design techniques (PPO or IPO-configured strings). The injection depth is the depth at which the flowing tubing pressure equals the casing pressure gradient minus the design pressure loss across the orifice or the maximum injection depth (packer depth). To prepare a design for tubing sensitive valves. The process is repeated until the valve depths no longer change. Valves are placed deeper and deeper. Once the first pass design is complete.45 bar safety margin) at that depth. PROSPER re-calculates the flowing gradient tubing using the current operating valve depth.

using the transfer pressure line. Intermediate unloading valves are spaced by traversing down using the load fluid gradient from the transfer pressure to intersect the casing pressure gradient for the operating injection pressure. but requires the unloading valves to be spaced more closely. (Forero et al. While this results in a design with few unloading valves.45 bar safety margin). PROSPER Help Manual) Figure 31 illustrates mandrel spacing for PPO-valves.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. A small value of % difference results in transfer pressures close to the flowing tubing gradient.Pwellhead straight line can result in shallow valves having a too conservative transfer pressures. any small increase in flowing tubing pressure may cause unloading valves to re-open. the unloading fluid gradient and the casing gradient. and the deeper valves may transfer too close to the tubing gradient line. The transfer pressure (tubing pressure at which the unloading valve closes) is calculated using the percent value of Pcasing . A larger value of % Pcasing .Pwellhead as follows: The surface pressure corresponding to the specified % difference between the operating tubing and casing pressures is calculated. This provides a greater safety margin against multi-point injection. The first unloading valve is spaced as for the casing sensitive case.. 1993. June 2007 The injection point is found as for casing sensitive valves by finding the intersection of the minimum tubing gradient line and the casing pressure gradient (minus a 3. The Figure shows how the valve setting depths are decided. The valve transfer pressure is defined at any depth by this line. A straight line is extended from this point to intersect the tubing pressure at the injection point. Selecting transfer pressures using only the % Pcasing .Pwellhead will increase the transfer pressure further away from the flowing tubing gradient. 32 . PROSPER adjusts the design transfer pressures so that valves are spaced efficiently while at the same time ensuring a good safety margin against multipoint injection.

2. The injection pressure is kept fixed at 180 bar.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.2. The Figure shows that this option gives shallower injection depth. (Statoil ASA) As pointed out in Chapter 6. A gas lift string design was performed using PROSPER. 33 .0 MSm3/d and the required casing pressure is 171. the volume flow rate of lift-gas required is 196.625’’ OD. and the two gas lift designs are illustrated in Figure 33 (IPO) and Figure 34 (PPO). and maximum casing pressure (lift-gas pressure at wellhead) is set to 180 bar. while the required volume flow rate of lift-gas is calculated to be 188. The input parameters and selections are presented in Table 12 and 13 respectively.11 bar.3 Model calculations Gas Lift model calculations have been tried conducted for all three cases: 1 well producing at 5000 Sm3/d (Case A) and 10 wells producing at 3750 Sm3/d and 2500 Sm3/d each (Case B and C). Two different designs are presented.1. June 2007 6. according to the drawdown plan presented in Figure 11.76 MSm3/d. One using IPO valves and one using PPO valves. as seen in Figure 34. For the IPO option.2. the size of the production tubing affects the gas lift performance significantly. the PPO option gives deeper injection but more mandrels and valves required. but requires less number of mandrels and valves. For Case A: The gas composition for the lift-gas is given in Table 11. As highlighted in the previous Chapter. Maximum available volume flow rate of lift-gas per well is 200 MSm3/d. and the envelope for the gas is plotted in Figure 32 (based on the values for year 2009. Table 11). in accordance with the design methods and parameters presented in Chapter 6. and the tubing-size considered optimal was 6. shown in Figure 33. Calculations were conducted for various tubing sizes.9’’ ID and 7.

it is referred to Appendix B. a flow chart of the lift-gas compression process at Statfjord was prepared and is presented in Figure 35. For this Case. is 204 bar. June 2007 In this thesis.1. This gives a delta P equal to 61 bar. The static fluid pressure at the perforations without gas lift is 265 bar (no flow) while the flowing gradient with gas lift. As seen in the Figure. equation (2): Delta P is equal to the pressure at the perforations with no gas lift system minus the pressure at the perforations with a gas lift system. calculations show that the IPO valves are most suited. For the detailed compressor-calculations and valve selection. the valve-option resulting in the lowest compressor-effect demand is selected.1. Based on assumptions and calculations made in Appendix B. the gas stream flows from the separator to a cooler. and finally through a second cooler. For the overall Gas Lift system efficiency.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. equation (1) is used: Useful and added effect for gas lift is defined in Chapter 6. while the second cooler outlet stream is 88 °C and 171. where the separator inlet stream equals the flowing wellhead production stream. Useful effect is calculated: Added effect equals compressor effect. through a compressor.1 to be 531. The separator inlet stream is 88 °C and 30 bar. calculated in Appendix B.1 bar. which can be found highlighted in Table 10.1. The gas lift system is considered a closed system.5 kW Overall gas lift system efficiency for Case A: 34 .

according to the above mentioned Figure. These values are valve depths. For Case B: A plot was prepared in PROSPER (Figure 37). A production rate of about 1600 Sm3/d is reached when injecting 1600 MSm3/d. PROSPER input values are enclosed as Table 16.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. showing the tubing performance curves for different values of injected GLR. the higher the friction pressure loss.7% for the given conditions. First and foremost. Calculations are found as Appendix B. Gas Lift is not a feasible lift method for Case B. 35 . casing pressure. The calculations for the modified Case B show an overall Gas Lift efficiency of 11. Referring to Figure 37.2. The results are however not directly comparable to the Case B results for the other lift methods as two of the significant parameters have changed (production flow rate and wellhead back pressure). The Figure shows one well on Gas Lift producing at 5000 Sm3/d. which corresponds to an injected GasLiquid Ratio of about 1000. reservoir pressure 100 bara) requires an unreasonably high injected GLR to produce. wellhead pressure in Case B was set to 5 bara and calculations were performed. This plot is based on the same tubing size as used for Case A and maximum gas injection depth (2748 m). the preset wellhead pressure is too high and the flowing bottomhole pressure too low to get the production flow rate desired using this lift method. which results in lower production flow rate. gas gravity and delta P across valve. The steeper the curve. but should nevertheless show an efficiency trend for the Gas Lift system. June 2007 Inflow and tubing performance curves for the Gas lift Case A is shown in Figure 36. As illustrated in Figure 37. this Case (Figure 37: upper inflow line. injected GLR. Clearly. it is seen that the tubing performance curves representing the higher injected GLR is steeper than the ones representing the lower injected GLR. In order to try to establish and quantify an efficiency trend for Gas Lift at a lower wellhead pressure for the given time frame (0-5 years of production).

For Case C. Hence. the total static pressure gradient for the fluid column must be less than 40 bar. The calculations for the modified Case C show an overall Gas Lift efficiency of 9. at an unreasonably high injected GLR of 1000. but the efficiency rapidly decrease as the reservoir pressure is falling faster than the required production flow rate for each well (Figure 11). Gas Lift is not feasible for Case C. As for Case B. Gas Lift gives a very high overall efficiency at the beginning of the 10 year period.7% for the given conditions. This to try to establish and quantify an efficiency trend for Gas Lift at a lower wellhead pressure for the given time frame (5-10 years of production). 6. 36 .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.3. the production demand of 3750 Sm3/d could not be reached. Referring to Figure 37 (lower inflow line. Maximum flow rate attainable is about 1600 Sm3/d. which corresponds to an average liquid density of about 150 kg/m3.4 Evaluation of results As the above calculations show. June 2007 For Case C: As the Gas Lift concept is based on lightening the fluid column. For Case B. if disregarding the friction pressure drop. there is obviously a lower limit for the reservoir pressure where gas lift is no longer feasible as an artificial lift method. Calculations are found as Appendix B. Calculations with a lower wellhead pressure were conducted also for Case C. independent of the injected GLR.The results are however not directly comparable to the Case C results for the other lift methods as two of the significant parameters have changed (production flow rate and wellhead back pressure). the tubing performance curves on the plot represent assumed optimal configurations of tubing and maximum gas injection depth. reservoir pressure is set to 70 bar and wellhead backpressure fixed at 30 bar. reservoir pressure 70 bara). Hence. it is shown that the Gas lifted well will not produce for Case C. but should nevertheless show an efficiency trend for the Gas Lift system.

it is shown that Gas Lift can be used.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. the friction pressure drop in the production tubing is too high and the lifted fluid too dense. Gas Lift is considered to be a non-feasible artificial lift method. independent of the injected GLR. it is seen that for Case C. increasing the required injected GLR additionally. This results in a very low overall efficiency for the modified Case C. calculations were conducted for Case B and C using a wellhead pressure of 5 bara. the well will not produce. but it will produce less than the required production flow rate and with a very low overall efficiency. 37 . bottomhole pressure was lowered from 85 bar to 60 bar. On the basis of the above arguments. By altering the wellhead backpressure in Case B and C. As the wellhead backpressure has a large influence on the Gas Lift performance. For Case B and C. For this. Gas Lift is not considered to be a suitable artificial lift method for the depressurization of Statfjord. From Case B to Case C. The calculations done for the modified Case B and Case C clearly show a dramatic decline in overall efficiency from Case A to Case B. June 2007 Referring to Figure 37.

Figure 46 illustrates the different elements in this equation.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. power loss due to the seal and overall efficiency of the motor and pump.P. June 2007 7. 38 . as for the other Chapters. measured in meters. 1973) in PROSPER. the required pump capacity has to be established. Tubular pressure losses are computed. tubing pressure loss. To choose the right equipment. Hd is calculated from the relation Further. H. the required topside effect is dependent on: bottomhole pressure.1 Presentation of ESP model As emphasised in Chapter 4. The following calculation procedures and equations are presented in the “Submersible Pump Handbook” from Baker Hughes CENTRILIFT: For the Total Dynamic Head (TDH).D. voltage drop in electric cable. Ft is the head required to overcome friction loss in the tubing in meters and Hwh (equal to Pd in Figure 46) is the head required to overcome the wellhead pressure. we have the following relation: . Brill. Application of Electrical Submersible Pump 7. (11) where Hd is the vertical distance between the wellhead and the estimated producing fluid level measured in meters.. the main purpose of the artificial lift calculations is to establish a comparable efficiency-size for the different artificial lift solutions. For this. using the “Beggs and Brill”-correlation (Beggs. J. the total dynamic head requirement is calculated. For the ESP solution. fluid density. desired flow rate..

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. motor and pump efficiencies can be extracted from performance curves and characteristic curves from the different manufacturers. motor and pumps depend greatly on the equipment and manufacturer selected. Hwh is computed by the following relation: In this thesis. the calculated TDH forms the basis for the further sizing and ESP equipment selection. Ft is estimated by using the relation: And finally. (12) 39 . Hence. ESP-gas calculations are neglected. and the GOR are low. June 2007 As the length of the production tubing is known Hd can be computed based on the equations above. Further calculations for power requirements for seal. as the producing volume flow rate of oil are very small. Seal. The power required by the downhole motor can be presented as: .

The constant in equation (13) refers to the 3 conductors of the electric current. As a result it is convenient to account for the surface losses by adding an additional 2% energy consumption to the calculated downhole value. The surface transformers are the main energy consumer and are usually between 97% and 99% efficient. (13) where amps are the given motor current in ampere and resistance is the cable resistance in ohm adjusted for well temperature (see Chapter 7.I. These losses can be calculated by the following formula: . In each conductor. the power cable has certain energy losses which are associated with the cable resistance and results in cable heat. 2002). 40 .2). C. this is not included here. a small amount of energy is consumed at the surface in the switchgear.. including for instance Variable Speed Drive calculations. which is equipment that helps protecting the electric motor from well fluids. the current is shifted 120 electrical degrees relative to each other in order to achieve a more even operation of the pump machinery (Hubert. and transformers.2. there are other considerations for more detailed and advanced ESP-system dimensioning.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. This is argued in later Chapters. Hence. However. Besides the kilowatts required to power the submersible motor. The electric current is transferred in 3 conductors or as 3 phases. In addition to the energy consumed by the motor operation and the cable losses. June 2007 where kWpump is the power required by the pump and kWseal is the power required by the seal section. cables. the total required input effect can be expressed as: (14) Certainly.

This is illustrated in Figure 49. Changes in the wellhead back pressure will also be of less consequence for the ESP performance compared to the Gas Lift.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. have to be taken into consideration when sizing the ESP system. The procedure varies considerable with well conditions or fluids to be pumped. just like other methods of artificial lift. for instance. This is seen in Figure 47. as the total pressure gain over the pump will enhance. Figure 27.2. the production flow rate will increase considerably with increasing number of stages. there are some main factors which affect the ESP performance significantly. 41 .2 ESP sizing The sizing of a submersible pumping installation. is not an exact science and involves a number of factors. Number of pump stages will affect the pump performance significantly. the tubing size has little influence on ESP performance. Detailed information on well completion.1 Main factors to control pump performance As for the other artificial lift methods. The operating frequency is proportional to the pump impellers RPM. production history and reservoir conditions are very important. 7. the above mentioned factors and several others. As opposed to Gas Lift. June 2007 7.2 ESP performance 7. Collection of good data covering these conditions prior to sizing a submersible installation is essential to proper sizing. as long as the pump physically fits in the tubing. where the production flow rate increases with increase in the operating frequency. while other factors have little or no influence on the pump performance. where the curve for the pump discharge pressure is quite steep compared to the IPR curve for the Gas Lift seen in. As illustrated in Figure 48. Another factor that influences the performance of the ESP is the pump operating frequency. To optimise pump performance.2.

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord

NTNU, June 2007

For the ESP sizing in this thesis, the “9-step” guide to ESP sizing by Baker Hughes CENTRILIFT is used. This is a nine step sizing procedure made to help engineers design and select the appropriate pumping systems for their wells. Detailed ESP calculations are found as Appendix C. The “9-step” (Baker Hughes CENTRILIFT) guide consists of the following steps:

Step 1: Basic Data Step 2: Production Capacity Step 3: Gas Calculations Step 4: Total Dynamic Head Step 5: Pump Type Step 6: Optimum Size of Components Step 7: Electric Cable Step 8: Accessory & Optional Equipment Step 9: Variable Speed Pumping System For detailed description of each step it is referred to the “9-step” guide.

7.3 Model calculations
For the ESP calculations, one must choose a manufacturer and gather essential data about different system components, such as pump characteristic curves, motor performance chart et cetera. In this thesis, Baker Hughes CENTRILIFT is chosen as the manufacturer of ESP.

Performance charts and characteristic curves for the selected pumps were received from Baker Hughes CENTRILIFT after an inquiry by the author. Unfortunately, specific performance curves for the selected motor and seal could not be obtained. Therefore, some required values for motor and seal calculations had to be estimated. However, the estimates should be fairly accurate. This is by best effort demonstrated in the calculations.

As Cases A, B and C use fixed flow rates, the Variable Speed Drive option is not included in this Chapter, but is further discussed as a solution in Chapter 10.

42

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord

NTNU, June 2007

The ESP-sizing calculations in its entirety can be found in Appendix C. PROSPER generated ESP Performance curves are enclosed as Figure 56, Figure 57 and Figure 58. Tables 19, 20 and 21 contain data for the plots. Estimating overall ESP system efficiency using:

As defined in Chapter 4, useful effect is written as: Useful effect = where ,

is the pressure increase over the pump.

It is referred to Appendix C for the more detailed ESP sizing calculations.

Case A:

Pressure discharge and intake pressures are given, for this case, in Table 19. Intake Pressure is 230 bar, while the discharge pressure is about 300 bar. Delta P for the given production is ~ 71 bar. The total required topside effect is in Appendix C estimated to be 1092.1 kW.

Overall ESP efficiency:

For this Case, the pump chosen (Baker Hughes CENTRILIFT HC27000) is not the absolutely optimal. Calculations using the Baker Hughes CENTRILIFT HC35000 gave an overall efficiency for Case A of about 42%. However, the HC35000 pump is not feasible for use at lower flow rates due to the pump operating range. Therefore, considering both economical and practical aspects, the HC27000 Pump is selected.

43

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord

NTNU, June 2007

Case B:

Estimating total ESP system efficiency: Pressure discharge and intake pressures are given, for this case, in Table 20. Delta P for the given production is ~ 206 bar. The total required topside effect is in Appendix C estimated to be 2042.4 kW for one well.

Overall ESP efficiency:

The total required input effect for all 10 wells are: 2042.4 kW x 10 = 20.424 MW

Case C:

Estimating total ESP system efficiency: Pressure discharge and intake pressures are given, for this case, in Table 21. Delta P for the given production is ~ 225 bar. The total required topside effect is in Appendix C estimated to be 1490.7 kW for one well.

Overall ESP efficiency:

The total required input effect for all 10 wells are: 1490.7 kW x 10 = 14.907 MW

44

This is further explained below the calculations for Case A. as it was not possible to gather information about a few specific parts. it is argued and illustrated in Appendix C that the assumptions made should be fairly accurate Calculations performed by PROSPER gave results close to the ones presented here. performance curves with flow rates for the three cases were generated.2 (Figure 1). Also.5% for Case A to 25.6% for Case A to 43. where the pump chosen is not optimal for the Case. it seems like the hydraulic efficiency is a few percent higher than the overall efficiency. the calculation results for ESP are considered to be reasonable. June 2007 7.3 are surprisingly similar. They all fall into the expected efficiency range. As earlier emphasized. PROSPER provides ESP options with pump characteristics very close to the pumps chosen in this thesis. ESP is the artificial lift system with the highest overall efficiency for the three Cases. As seen in Figure 56. Keeping this in mind. as indicated in the Jet Pump calculations and in Chapter 5. varying from 37. Jet Pump has reported overall efficiencies on 30. efficiency was not attainable. which is used for the ESP calculations. the results from the PROSPER calculations and the manual calculations in Chapter 7. the accuracy of these assumptions must be taken into consideration when evaluating the efficiency and power-requirement results.4. For Gas Lift. they seem reasonable. As illustrated in Figure 59. By using the same ESP input values in PROSPER as calculated here. while for Case B and C. Figure 56 shows one ESP lifted well flowing at 5000 Sm3/d. Some assumptions had to be made regarding the ESP equipment characteristics. Figure 57 one ESP lifted well flowing at 3750 Sm3/d and Figure 58 one well flowing at 2500 Sm3/d.2% for Case B and C respectively. However. Figure 57 and Figure 58.9% and 24. Plots of overall efficiency and power requirement for the three Artificial Lift systems are presented as Figure 59 and Figure 60.7% for Case B and C.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.4 Evaluation of results Comparing the above results with the typical ESP hydraulic efficiencies presented in Chapter 2. the overall efficiency for Case A was 66%. except for Case A. 45 .

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. while ESP requires about 20MW. ESP is the most energy efficient lift system for all three Cases. 46 . it is quite obvious that compared to Jet Pump. June 2007 Referring to Figure 60. For the Case with the highest total power requirement (Case B). Jet Pump requires about 40MW.

Capex numbers for the Jet Pump option was difficult to obtain. the investment costs will vary greatly depending on the inquirer. depending on the well conditions.6 (16) 47 . the Law of Scaling (Gudmundsson. an estimated value from the paper “Artificial Lift Selection for Gas Well Deliquification” (Lea. cooperation history et cetera. from 1989.. a discount rate of 6% is used. Investment costs for the Jet Pump is in the paper estimated to 46 000 USD per pump. For discount calculations. June 2007 8.L. Here. The different customers receive individual equipment and service prices depending on total value of the order. The paper states that Jet Pumps normally lasts between 1-3 years when properly sized and operated. according to well conditions with minimal gas production and with treated water as power fluid. For the calculations in this Chapter. per pump. a lifetime period of 3 years is selected for the Jet Pumps. the following equation is used: . Artificial Lift Capex Estimates for Statfjord Investment costs and equipment price will vary greatly between the different manufacturers of artificial lift systems. Hence.C and Petrie.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. Using a conversion factor of 6. However. To estimate a Capex price for these pumps. t the time in years and r the discount rate. In this thesis. F. the Jet Pump investment cost.5 NOK/USD.1 Capex estimates using Jet Pump Regarding the continuity of the Jet Pump. J. As investment costs for a Jet Pump system was difficult to obtain directly from the manufacturers. is 300 000 NOK. the value in year t. 8.. the Jet Pumps handle an average of about 20 000 Barrels/day. 2005) is used for the Capex estimate. et al. (15) where is the present value. and the reliability of the source used here can be discussed.S. 2007-06-05) is used: NOK2 = NOK1 x (Capacity2/Capacity1)0. H. this is for a Jet Pump handling a maximum of 200 Barrels/day. it is referred to the SPE paper “Obtaining Low Bottomhole Pressure in Deep Wells with Hydraulic Jet Pumps” by Christ. J.

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord This gives a Capex for each pump on: NOK2 = 300 000 NOK x (20 000 Barrels/d / 200 Barrels/d)0.6

NTNU, June 2007

5 million NOK.

This is probably a somewhat exaggerated amount, but is used for further calculations, as it was difficult to obtain a more accurate amount from the Jet Pump suppliers.

In Table 22, NPV Capex is estimated to be 144.6 million NOK. The Table contains the NPV Capex, as well as an overview of the discounted investment costs per year.

8.2 Capex estimates using Gas Lift
As Gas Lift has been found technically unsuitable for the depressurization project, no economical evaluations has been made for this artificial lift method. It is referred to Chapter 6.3 for calculations and further elaboration.

8.3 Capex estimates using ESP
In the paper “Turning a North Sea Oil Giant Into a Gas Field – Depressurization of the Statfjord Field” (Boge, R. et al., 2005), it is stated that a mean average ESP lifetime of 18 months has been used for planning and budgeting purposes. However, experience from other fields may suggest that this is a somewhat optimistic estimate. Referring to the paper “Deployment of High-Horsepower ESPs to Extend Brent Field Life” (Blanksby, J., Hicking, S., 2005), the water producing ESPs applied on the Brent field have had varying lifetimes, with a reported average far below 18 months. But, the same paper also reports that with some adjustments, a pump lifetime of about 2 years should be obtainable. For calculations in this thesis, an estimated lifetime of 18 months is used.

The operator has supplied the initial ESP system investment costs, which is about 20 million NOK per well. Some of the equipment included in this price is for topside use, and will not need replacement through the projects life. It is assumed that the price for renewal of downhole equipment is 15 million NOK per well per workover. It is strongly emphasised that these are approximate prices from the operator, not exact prices directly from the supplier.

48

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord

NTNU, June 2007

Table 23 contains the Capex estimate for the ESP option. Totally, it summarises to 792.4 million NOK. The Table contains the NPV Capex, as well as an overview of the discounted investment costs per year.

Figure 61 shows a comparison between Jet Pump and ESP Capex. From the Figure it is seen that ESP represents considerably larger investments costs than the Jet Pump. NPV Capex for ESP is calculated to be about 5.5 times higher than for Jet Pump.

49

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord

NTNU, June 2007

9. Artificial Lift Opex Estimates for Statfjord
Opex calculations for the reviewed Artificial Lift solutions at Statfjord are a difficult task. It is strongly emphasized that the following calculations are based on various uncertainties and is not to be understood as accurate valuations. It is merely a financial estimation presented in order to separate the artificial lift methods in regards to operational expenses.

As mentioned in Chapter 4, input power for the Artificial Lift system is generated by topside turbines. Table 24, provided by Statoil ASA, shows the production cost calculations for the electrical power generated. The NOK/kWh value is calculated based on turbine fuel costs, maintenance, and taxes. The production cost used for the following Chapters is 0.412 NOK/kWh. Total average power costs per year are calculated as follows:

(17)

9.1 Opex estimates using Jet Pump
As emphasized in Chapter 5.3, the free Jet Pump solution is chosen. This pump can be easily retrieved and replaced without pulling the tubing. To retrieve the pump, circulation is reversed, forcing the pump to the surface. Maintenance and repair are infrequent and inexpensive for this solution, as the pump can be replaced and reconfigured without well intervention. Due to this fact, for Jet Pump Opex calculations, well interventions are considered unnecessary.

An Excel spreadsheet for the Opex calculations is enclosed as Table 25. As the Jet Pump Lift performance has not been calculated for each year, some simplifying assumptions have been made, based on Case A, B and C. An average pump discharge pressure of 325 bara has been assumed, as pump discharge pressure for the three cases is 326, 324 and 326 bara respectively (Appendix A, Case A,B,C, Step 16). Also, the overall Jet Pump efficiency has been assumed linearly decreasing from 30.5% to 24.2%. Based on this data, equation (1) and (2) was used to calculate the total required effect for each year of production. Average values were calculated for number of producing wells and total production the first three years (gradually producing from 1 well in 2010 to 10 wells in early 2013).

50

Table 25 contains the NPV Opex. The Table contains NPV Opex.3 Opex estimates using ESP One of the largest uncertainties regarding the operational expenses for ESP is the lifetime of the pumps. Economical estimations for Gas Lift will therefore not be conducted. B and C calculations from Chapter 5 and 7. Pump discharge pressure is assumed linearly decreasing from 300 bara in year 0 to 285 bara in year 10. 9. The overall efficiency for the whole depressurization period is 51 . The excel spreadsheet for the ESP Opex calculations is found as Table 26. as well as an overview of the discounted production costs per year. or an average of 13.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. the pump lifetime is vital to the economical estimates for the Artificial Lift method. For the ESP solution. The well intervention frequency is based on an ESP lifetime of 18 months. As a retrieval of the ESP pump requires a full well intervention and pulling of the tubing. One should be aware of that overall efficiency reported in this plot is the expected overall efficiency trend based on Case A. as well as an overview of the discounted production costs per year. this is not a technically feasible Artificial Lift solution for the depressurization process. a well intervention will cost about 20 million NOK per well. The ESP overall efficiency has been assumed linearly increasing from year 0 to year 5. According to available information from the operator. the NPV Opex is about 1311 million NOK. 9. and steady at 43. June 2007 NPV Opex for the Jet Pump solution were calculated to be about 948 million NOK (Table 25).7% from year 5-10. which is about 9.1 million NOK per well per year.5 million NOK per well per year.2 Opex estimates using Gas Lift As shown earlier in the thesis. The Opex calculations for both Jet Pump and ESP are plotted together with the belonging artificial lift efficiencies in Figure 63.

The Figures plot total costs versus time. is considerably higher than the Jet Pump Opex. its accuracy can be discussed. Figure 62 shows the Opex distribution for ESP. the total discounted costs for 10 years estimates to about 2. Figure 63 illustrates average overall artificial lift efficiency vs. June 2007 interpolated between three points. ESP is a very expensive alternative. The total time distributed costs for the ESP and Jet Pump can be found in Figure 64 and Figure 65.1 billion NOK.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. For the Jet Pump the price is estimated to 1. the Jet Pump should be selected as the artificial water-lift system on Statfjord. Hence. Due to the high frequency well interventions and pump replacement.1 billion NOK. The Figure shows that the ESP Opex. where the Capex and Opex values for each year are reported. The Figure illustrates the costs distribution both as percentage shares of total ESP Opex and as shares of total ESP Opex in million NOK. dominated by well intervention costs. Using ESP. where the dominance of well intervention costs is evident. and although it gives a good indication for the efficiencytrend. respectively. even though the Jet Pump is significantly less energy efficient. It is referred to Figure 66 for the total discounted costs for the 10 year project. Opex for ESP and Jet Pump. from a financial point of view. 52 .

calculations were made for Case B and C. June 2007 10. in a transport compressor or similar. However. and the efficiency can not be calculated. Also. as the power requirement is zero.2. However.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. ESP was calculated to be the artificial lift alternative with the highest overall power efficiency for Case B and C. (1998). Gas Lift design is a difficult and complex exercise and too many inaccurate assumptions can significantly affect the final Gas Lift design. for the calculations in Chapter 6. Referring to Chapter 2. When considering the Gas Lift system as a closed system. the drop in wellhead backpressure was not sufficient to deliver the required water production flow rate. data for both the lift-gas and the wellconditions should be fairly accurate. To evaluate the influence of the wellhead backpressure. a Gas Lift compressor should not be needed. the method was in this thesis used in an effort to make comparable values for artificial lift efficiency. lowering the wellhead pressure from 30 to 5 bara. Andreassen (1990) and Jahn et al. However. this 53 . but the efficiency declines rapidly. the extra power needed to compress the gas from 5 bara instead of 30 bara resulted in a very low overall power efficiency. as the reservoir pressure declines much faster than the required production flow rate per well. This method is very dependent on the power requirement of the topside compressor and the existing process-system on the platform. and it can be discussed whether or not the user input was entirely correct. For Case B and C. as the compressor input power is of vital importance to the overall efficiency for Gas Lift. Discussion Gas Lift calculations conducted for the cases presented in Chapter 4 strongly indicate that this is not a feasible artificial lift method for the depressurisation project. Some parts of the Gas Lift design was performed using PROSPER. the power requirement for the Gas Lift corresponds to the extra amount of power needed to compress the gas from system inlet pressure to desired casing pressure. If the gas is already compressed to the desired casing pressure. In general. Gas Lift has a high overall efficiency for one well producing with a relatively high reservoir pressure. Gas Lift was proven unsuitable as the Gas Lift system was unable to deliver the required flow rate regardless of the injected GLR. the overall Gas Lift efficiency calculation methods presented in this thesis can be discussed.

The hydraulic efficiency varies from about 33 to about 27 percent. June 2007 should. an average lifetime of the pumps on 18 months was used. ideally. the most energy efficient lift method for the larger part of the project. Based on. Also. For Jet Pump. As emphasised in the Chapter 7 calculations. for comparison. the pumps will get a prolonged lifetime and increased reliability. it might be argued to be too conservative. In this thesis. and varies from about 31 to 24 percent. which is a reasonable value according to Jahn et al. the overall power efficiency was calculated. ESP has a short expected lifetime and requires a well intervention for pump retrieval. However. The assumptions made for these values should however be fairly reasonable. as the PROSPER calculated results was very similar to the manual calculation results. Although the free Jet Pump is selected and. As both the ESP equipment and well interventions are very costly. somewhat lower than the hydraulic efficiency. This estimate could be argued to be too conservative. the project economics depends greatly on the ESP lifetime. Although it is. The overall efficiency for the ESP varies from 38% for Case A and 44% for Case B and C. both the overall and hydraulic efficiency was calculated. it may seem like an optimistic estimate. More reliable pumps with longer lifetime will dramatically reduce the ESP costs. Yet. no well intervention is required. the assumption of zero well interventions or other repair costs through the field life might be an exaggeration. experience from the Brent field. They should however be very small compared to the maintenance costs for the ESP. using the equations presented in Chapter 4. As new technology develops. some of the characteristic curves for the selected ESP motor and seal could not be obtained. in general. Jet Pump is estimated to be the reasonable choice of artificial lift system in regards to total costs. (1998). by far. based on the estimates from pump suppliers. 54 . be a reasonable result. Maintenance costs for Jet Pumps was very difficult to obtain.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. The overall efficiency was. as expected. when dealing with an expected ESP lifetime of 18 months. but also too optimistic. for instance. The ESP lifetime is an important factor when discussing both ESP Capex and Opex.

However. When planning the future offshore production systems. however. Simplifications and assumptions will naturally have an impact on the results in this thesis. Anyhow. Through the Fields life. the most important element is to illustrate the relative difference between Jet Pump and ESP equipment costs. For instance. the higher the degree of pollution. This power is produced by gas turbines. Combinations of the two artificial lift systems could also be used. This technology might also be implemented on Statfjord. the source and calculations method used here can be discussed. as traditionally carried out by engineering department and firms. Many different completion types are available for each pump system. not reviewed in this thesis. from an environmental point of view. June 2007 Obtaining reasonable investment costs for Jet Pump systems is not a simple task. the Jet Pump investment costs used should be somewhat in the same order of magnitude as the costs given from the suppliers. 55 . They are. the higher power production. it is estimated that the required topside power for the ESP is about half of for the Jet Pump. in order to get a reasonable comparison basis for the artificial lift methods. the ESP is probably the most reasonable choice of artificial lift system. For instance. Referring to Chapter 8. it has been important to make simple cases.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. as it has been emphasized from NTNU that this thesis is not an engineering assignment. for instance the ESP dual pump completion and variable speed drive for ESP. Hence. as a compromise between environmental thinking and total expenses. reducing both total well intervention costs and ESP investments costs. Integrated Operations and man-less installations are key words. In this thesis. the low maintenance Jet Pumps should probably be selected before the high maintenance ESPs. In this regard. which discharges both CO2 and NOx gases to the environment. However. running Jet Pumps in the first period of the project and installing ESPs later in the project life. like assuming vertical wells instead of horizontal wells.

The required topside electrical power input ranges from 1.1 MW for one well. for one well producing at a relatively high reservoir pressure. ESP Opex is calculated to be considerably higher than Opex for the Jet Pump. which is a consequence of short expected lifetime of the ESPs. the power requirements for Jet Pumping are 1. water is too dense and the friction pressure loss in the production tubing.4 MW and 14. 66%. Despite the fact that it is proven the most energy efficient lift system. This is mainly due to the short expected ESP lifetime. respectively. ranging from 38% at an early stage to 44% at a middle and late stage. preventing the Gas lifted wells to produce the required water flow rates. For comparison. respectively. while Jet Pump NPV Opex is estimated to about 950 million NOK. Gas Lift and Jet Pump are evaluated as petroleum production techniques for water lift. to 20. For this.8 MW for one well in the early phase. Jet Pump overall efficiency ranges from 31% to 26% and 24% for the early.8 MW for 10 wells in the late phase. the reservoir pressure is estimated to decline very fast in the early phase of the depressurization project. resulting in a high 56 . This is mainly due to the high number of required costly well interventions. 40 MW for 10 wells in the middle phase and 31. too high. June 2007 11. Conclusion ESP. each case representing the depressurization phase at an early. for three different cases.9 MW for 10 wells at an early. the most energy efficient artificial lift alternative. Calculations for the assumed optimal design are carried out for all three artificial lift methods. Although this lift method achieves a very high overall power efficiency. ESP is estimated to be. Calculation results show that ESP has the highest overall efficiency for the larger part of the depressurization period. independent of the injected gas volume. NPV Opex for ESP is estimated to about 1300 million NOK. middle and late project phase. middle and late stage. caused by a high volume of injected gas. Gas Lift is found to be an unsuitable artificial lift method for pumping of deep water at low reservoir pressures.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. by far. middle and late stage. Compared to the Jet Pump. the ESP is also proved to be a very expensive alternative in regards to Capex.

if regarding the environmental aspects and the overall energy efficiency. However.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. June 2007 pump replacement frequency. for ESP and Jet Pump. this indicates that Jet Pump is the obvious preferred artificial lift system. Hence. ESP should be selected for the depressurization of the Statfjord Field. respectively. 57 . Total NPV Capex for the two artificial lift methods are estimated to about 790 million NOK and 145 million NOK. from an economical perspective.

NTNU.”. R. personal communication. (2005):”Artificial Lift Selection for Gas Well Deliquification”. Tulsa. SPE Production Engineering  Gudmundsson.. www. SPE-article  Boge. et al.I.S. G. S. F. F. Ohio  Jahn.L. Gas Well De-Liquification Workshop. June 2007 12. Brill.L. E.W. J. (1989): “Design and Application of an Integral Jet Pump/Safety valve in a North Sea oilfield”.. G. Dotterweich. (1988): “Fundamentals of Oilwell Jet Pumping”. H. H. IPT. Denver 58 . Netherlands  Jiao. Prentice Hall.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. USA  Lea. J. 2007-06-05  Hubert.. A. Journal of Petroleum Technology  Blanksby.. F. www. J. et al. (2005): “Deployment of High-Horsepower ESPs To Extend Brent Field Life”. (1993):”Artificial Lift Manual Part 2A – Gas Lift Design Guide”. SPE article  Andreassen. (1946): “Report of the Calibration of Positive Flow Beans as Manufactured by Thornhill-Craver Company Inc. Journal of Fluid Engineering  Forero. et al. et al.D. (1998): “Hydrocarbon exploration and production”. E. (1990): “Power Analysis of Offshore Artificial Lift – Electrical Submersible Pumping and Gas Lifting Compared”. (1989):”Obtaining Low Bottomhole Pressure in Deep Wells With Hydraulic Jet Pumps”. (1982): “Overview of Artificial Lift Systems”.bakerhughesdirect. R. (2005): “Turning a North Sea Oil Giant Into a Gas Field – Depressurization of the Statfjord Field”. Petrie. et al. (2002): “Electrical Machines”. Shell International (confidential)  Grupping. B.com (requires user to create an account)  Beggs. K. SPE Article  Christ. Texas College of A and I  Cunningham. Trondheim  Baker Hughes CENTRILIFT: “9-Step”.C.H. (1988): “Performance model for hydraulic jet pumping of two phase fluids”. C. (1973): “A Study of Two-Phase Flow in Inclined Pipes”. Hicking.P. SPE Production Engineering  Cook. References  Allan et al. (1974): “Gas Compression with the Liquid Jet Pump”.bakerhughesdirect. J. SPE-article  Brown. H.com  Baker Hughes CENTRILIFT: “Electrical Submersible Pump Handbook”.

. H. World Oil  PROSPER Gas Lift Design Help Manual 59 . Trondheim. H. NTNU. IPT. J.L. (1994):”New and Expected Developments in Artificial Lift”.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. (2006): “Review and Application of the Tulsa Liquid Jet Pump Model”. P. (1983): “Jet Pumping Oil Wells”.J.  Petrie. June 2007  Lea.F. et al. Winkler.W. SPE-article  Pedersen.

d1 Bottomhole temperature.D Casing OD Casing ID.Pi Wellhead back pressure.T Flowing bottomhole pressure.Wc Gas-oil ratio Oil gravity Water gradient Oil viscosity Oil gradient PI Unit m m m °C Pa Pa Sm^3/s Sm^3/Sm^3 kg/sm^3 Pa/m Pas Pa/m Sm^3/d/bar Value 2748 0.2667 0.Pwh Desired flowrate.00135 7100 250 60 .995 20 843 10300 0. June 2007 Tables Table 1: Well data for Case A (Statoil ASA) Input Data Pump Setting depth.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.Qi Water Cut .245 92 8500000 3000000 0.Pwh Desired flowrate.d1 Bottomhole temperature.995 20 843 10300 0.Pi Wellhead back pressure.00135 7100 250 Table 2: Well data for Case B (Statoil ASA) Input Data Pump Setting depth.05787037 0.Qi Water Cut .043402778 0.D Casing OD Casing ID.2667 0.245 92 23000000 3000000 0.Wc Gas-oil ratio Oil gravity Water gradient Oil viscosity Oil gradient PI Unit m m m °C Pa Pa Sm^3/s Sm^3/Sm^3 kg/sm^3 Pa/m Pas Pa/m Sm^3/d/bar Value 2748 0.T Flowing bottomhole pressure.

Pwh Desired flowrate. Case A. June 2007 Table 4: Data table for the return annular liquid flow.d1 Bottomhole temperature. This is calculated by PROSPER.2667 0. 61 .245 92 6000000 3000000 0.028935185 0.Wc Gas-oil ratio Oil gravity Water gradient Oil viscosity Oil gradient PI Unit m m m °C Pa Pa Sm^3/s Sm^3/Sm^3 kg/sm^3 Pa/m Pas Pa/m Sm^3/d/bar Value 2748 0. Chapter 5.00135 7100 250 NTNU.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Table 3: Well data for Case C (Statoil ASA) Input Data Pump Setting depth.Qi Water Cut .T Flowing bottomhole pressure.Pi Wellhead back pressure.995 20 843 10300 0. Highlighted are the return liquid flow rate (step 11. setting the return conduit to “casing-tubing annulus”.D Casing OD Casing ID.3) and the corresponding friction pressure loss.

Highlighted are the return liquid flow rate (step 11. setting the return conduit to “casing-tubing annulus”. Chapter 5. Case C. Chapter 5. This is calculated by PROSPER.3) and the corresponding friction pressure loss. This is calculated by PROSPER.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. Highlighted are the return liquid flow rate (step 11. Table 6: Data table for the return annular liquid flow. Case B. setting the return conduit to “casing-tubing annulus”. June 2007 Table 5: Data table for the return annular liquid flow. 62 .3) and the corresponding friction pressure loss.

Table 8: PROSPER data chart for Figure 19 63 .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. June 2007 Table 7: PROSPER data chart for Figure 18.

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. June 2007 Table 9: PROSPER data chart for Figure 20 Table 10: PROSPER data chart for Figure 36 64 .

June 2007 65 .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Table 11: Statfjord B lift-gas composition (Statoil ASA) NTNU.

June 2007 66 .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Table 12: Input data for Figure 33(PROSPER) NTNU.

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Table 13: Input data for Figure 34 (PROSPER) NTNU. June 2007 67 .

(HYSYS generated) 68 .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. June 2007 Table 14: Properties and conditions for the gas lift gas stream (PPO valve option).

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. June 2007 Table 15: Properties and conditions for the gas lift gas stream (IPO valve option). (HYSYS generated) 69 .

NTNU.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Table 16: Input data for the Gas lift calculations. Case A. June 2007 70 .

June 2007 71 .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Table 17: Data for the producing gas lift well. Appendix B.2. NTNU.

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. June 2007 Table 18: Data for the producing gas lift well. Appendix B. 72 .3.

June 2007 Table 20: Data Chart for Figure ESP Case B 73 .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Table 19: Data Chart for Figure ESP Case A NTNU.

79 15. MMNOK 2010 4 4 80 80.47 14.00 2018 10 2 10.Brent Group (Statfjord Field) Year Total # wells at end of year # New Pumps Total pump equipment price.00 20. CAPEX Estimate for ESP Solution .00 2012 10 2 10.8 2012 10 6 100 89.0 2013 10 8 120 100.Brent Group (Statfjord Field) Year Total # wells at end of year # New Pumps Total pump equipment price.6 2017 10 6 90 59. MMNOK Total discounted investment costs.4 792.10 years. MMNOK 2010 4 4 20.10 years. MMNOK Discounted investment costs.5 2019 10 8 120 71.3 2015 10 6 90 67.00 2017 10 4 20.00 2014 10 4 20.00 2016 10 4 20. MMNOK Discounted investment costs.00 2015 10 2 10.00 2011 8 4 20.3 2016 10 8 120 84. MMNOK Total discounted investment costs.90 16. CAPEX Estimate for Jet Pump Solution .10 13.00 2019 10 4 20.84 7. June 2007 Table 22: CAPEX Estimate – Jet Pump.27 11.00 2020 10 4 20.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Table 21: Data Chart for Figure ESP Case C NTNU.8 2014 10 6 90 71.87 8.17 144.00 18.00 2013 10 4 20.6 Table 23: CAPEX Estimate – ESP.0 2011 8 6 110 103.9 2018 10 6 90 56.84 11.0 2020 10 1 15 8.30 6.4 74 .

4 % Spare engine available.0021 kgNOx/Sm3 NOx factor SAC 0.2 24. MMNOK Estimated well intervention costs / year.686 m3CO2/Sm3 Fuel gas consumtion@20 MW 1.8 25. bara Average total production.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Table 24: Production cost of electrical power at Statfjord (Statoil ASA). 948 75 .5 2800 65904.147 kg/s Fuel gas density 0.7 27. fuel gas cost 0. MMNOK Discounted total production costs / year.84 NOK/litre Spec.5 0 0 37224.5 24.2 325 325 325 325 325 325 325 325 325 325 325 1437 4713 17 5841 19747 71 10177 35508 128 10920 39366 142 10694 39875 144 10417 40219 145 10087 39463 142 9517 37735 136 8924 35867 129 8307 33852 122 7668 31685 114 17 71 128 142 144 145 142 136 129 122 114 17 67 114 119 114 108 100 91 81 72 64 Total discounted production costs. CO2 cost 0.9 24.Brent Group (Statfjord Field) Year Average # wells through year Average Reservoir pressure.6 160000 88748936.0121 kgNOx/Sm3 Operation time @fuelgas 8000 Hours/year Operation time @diesel 0 Hours/year Operation time @flare 0 Hours/year Fuel gas consumption@20 MW 44315050 m3/year Maintanance 350 NOK/hour Turbine efficiency 36.7 399799. Nox cost 40 NOK/kg CO2 faktor 2.5 2800 NTNU.5 170 158 30206 2012 9.7456 kg/m3 Gassens brennverdi 47940 kJ/kg Turbinens heat rate 9900 kJ/kW*hr NOx factor DLE 0. Production cost of electrical power : NOK/kW DLE SAC kNOK/Year kNOK/Year 22157. MMNOK 2010 2. availability ok Table 25: OPEX Estimate – Jet Pump OPEX Estimate for Jet Pump Solution . kW Total input effect = Total useful effect / efficiency.5 135 118 42478 2013 10 120 103 42500 2014 10 110 94 40000 2015 10 100 85 37500 2016 10 90 76 35000 2017 10 85 72 32500 2018 10 80 68 30000 2019 10 75 64 27500 2020 10 70 60 25000 30.499 0. cost (NOK/kWh) 22157. MMNOK Total production costs / year.5 37224.6 28.412 83630.10 years.9 25. Diesel cost 4 NOK/litre Spec.17 555 69386.5 228 223 12190 2011 6. Sm^3/d Average expected Artificial Lift efficiency. % Average expected pump discharge pressure.6 3722. kW Average power costs / year. bara Average flowing bottomhole pressure.84 NOK/Sm3 Spec.7 2.7 0.434 0.5 NOK/Sm3 Spec. June 2007 Based on LM2500 Fuel gas cost Diesel gas cost Flare gas cost CO2 tax Nox tax Maintenance REGEX Total annular cost @20MW Electrical power (MWh) CO2 (ton/year) CO2 (ton/MWh) NOx (kg/year) NOx (kg/MWh) Total spec. CO2 cost 0.7 26.6 21448.523 Assumptions Spec. bara △ Total useful effect = Q_production × P.6 25.5 29.

MMNOK Total production costs / year.0 103 42500 41.5 85 37500 43.7 64 27500 43. kW Total input effect = Total useful effect / efficiency.10 years. 1311 76 .5 228 2011 6. bara Average total production. kW Average power costs / year. bara Average flowing bottomhole pressure.5 135 2013 10 120 2014 10 110 2015 10 100 2016 10 90 2017 10 85 2018 10 80 2019 10 75 2020 10 70 223 12190 37.7 68 30000 43.8 118 42478 40. June 2007 Table 26: OPEX Estimate – ESP OPEX Estimate for ESP Solution .6 158 30206 38. MMNOK Discounted total production costs / year.7 300 298 296 295 293 291 290 289 287 286 285 1085 4904 8770 9425 9204 8941 8661 8148 7618 7072 6510 2885 10 0 12634 46 2 21904 79 4 22842 82 8 21666 78 6 20460 74 6 19819 72 8 18644 67 6 17433 63 6 16184 58 8 14898 54 1 0 40 80 160 120 120 160 120 120 160 20 10 86 159 242 198 194 232 187 183 218 74 10 81 142 204 157 145 163 125 115 129 41 Total discounted production costs.3 94 40000 42. MMNOK # Well interventions / year Estimated well intervention costs / year.7 60 25000 43. % Average expected pump discharge pressure.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. Sm^3/d Average expected Artificial Lift efficiency.7 76 35000 43.7 72 32500 43. bara △ Total useful effect = Q_production × P.5 170 2012 9. MMNOK 2010 2.Brent Group (Statfjord Field) Year Average # wells through year Average Reservoir pressure.

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.. et al. 1998) 77 . F. June 2007 Figures Figure 1: Comparison of different artificial lift methods (Jahn.

K. 1982) 78 .. June 2007 Figure 2: Relative advantages of artificial lift systems. (Brown.E.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.

1982) 79 .E.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. June 2007 Figure 3: Relative disadvantages of artificial lift systems.. K. (Brown.

1989. www.com) 80 .weatherford..Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. June 2007 Figure 4: Jet pump operating principles (Allan et al.

bakerhughesdirect.no/~jsg/undervisning/prosessering/forelesninger/06-Pumper.pdf) Figure 6: Illustration of ESP configuration (www.ntnu.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.com) 81 . June 2007 Figure 5: Illustration of centrifugal pump principles (www.ipt.

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.statoil.statoil. (www. (www. June 2007 Figure 7: Geographical map of the Statfjord field.com) Figure 8: The Tampen area.com) 82 .

R. 2005) 83 . June 2007 Figure 9: Stratigraphical column showing depositional environment and permeabilities. (Boge..Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. et al.

.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. 2005) 84 . June 2007 Figure 10: Illustration of the Statfjord depressurization process (Boge et al.

2012 September 1. Sm^3/d 85 . 2010 January 1. 2011 January 1. 2014 January 1.Brent Time. 2016 May 1. 2019 January 1. 2018 May 1. 2013 Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord January 1. 2016 January 1. 2015 May 1. 2020 5000 0 10000 20000 25000 35000 40000 50000 15000 Figure 11: Water production and reservoir pressure decline vs. 2010 September 1. 2014 September 1. Time . 2013 September 1. 2019 September 1. 2017 January 1. 2018 January 1.Pressure. 2012 January 1. June 2007 Production. years May 1. Sm^3/d Reservoir pressure. 2018 September 1. 2014 May 1. 2012 May 1. 2015 January 1. bara 50 100 150 300 200 250 0 January 1. 2011 September 1. 2013 May 1. Sm^3/d 30000 45000 NTNU. 2017 September 1. bara Production per well. 2011 May 1. time for the Brent formation (Statoil ASA) Production flowrate. 2017 Waterproduction and Reservoir Pressure vs. 2010 May 1. 2016 September 1. 2019 May 1. 2015 September 1.

48 Perm eability No Relative Predicting Pressure and Tem perature (offshore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Reservoir Pres sure 250.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves . (PROSPER generated) 86 .00 3=200.00 2=150.00 1=100.000 (percent) Com pletion Cased Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.Water Producer on Natural Lift 320 4 3 2 1 0 NTNU.00 3 240 4 Pressure (BARa) 3 160 2 80 1 0 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Liquid Rate (Sm 3/day) PVT Method Black Oil Top Node Press ure 30.00 4=250.95 0.0 (m ) Gas Coning No Artificial Lift None Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill Reservoir Model PI Entry Lift Type Vertical Lift Correlation Beggs and Brill 0. June 2007 Variables 1:Reservoir Pressure (BARa) 1 2 0=70.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord Well Eksem pel Analyst BFS Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Figure 12: Water Producer on natural lift at various reservoir pressures.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Intersection Dis Allow Reservoir Tem perature 92.

No zzle (1 5) Throat (3 ) An 0.0 (m ) Grave l Pa ck No Well Type Pro ducer Bottom True Vertical Depth27 48.0 1=100 0. (PROSPER generated) 87 . (PROSPER generated) Inflow v Outflow Curves 60 0 IPR Curve VL P Curve PDP Va riab les 3:Jet Pum p Inje ction Pres s ure (BARa ) 1 2 3 0=100 .00 50 0 Pressure (BARa) 40 0 30 0 4 3 2 1 0 4 3 2 1 0 20 0 0 20 00 40 00 4 3 2 1 0 80 00 60 00 Liq uid Ra te (Sm 3/da y) PVT Meth od Black Oil To p No de Pres s ure 30 .00 0 (p erce nt) 10 Com pletion Cas e d Ho le Flo w Typ e An nula r Bottom Meas ure d De pth27 48.084 At 0.00 3=600 . PDP = Pump Discharge Pressure.0 (d eg C) Fie ld Statfjord JET Pum p Te s t .00 2=400 .00 (BARa ) 25 Com pan y Statoil Le ft-Ha nd Inte rs e ctio n Dis Allow Res e rvoir Tem pe ra tu re 92 .2 62 Well Eks em pe l An alys t BFS Date 16 Ja n 07 12 :16 Figure 14: Jet performance using different power fluid injection pressures. June 2007 Va riab les 3:Jet Pum p Inje ction Rate (Sm 3/da y) 1 2 3 0=500 .0 2=200 0.00 (BARa ) Inflow Type Single Bran ch Flu id Oil Water Cu t 0.00 (BARa ) 25 Com pan y Statoil Le ft-Ha nd Inte rs e ctio n Dis Allow Res e rvoir Tem pe ra tu re 92 .084 At 0.No zzle (1 5) Throat (3 ) An 0.An nula r Pro duction Ve rtical Lift Corre la tio n Petroleum Exp erts 2 Relative Perm eab ility No Pre dictin g Pre s s u re a nd Tem perature (offs ho re) Te mp erature Mo del Roug h App ro xima tio n Solutio n No de Bottom Node Res e rvoir Pres s ure 0.322 R 0. PDP = Pump Discharge Pressure.0 50 0 Pressure (BARa) 40 0 30 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 20 0 0 20 00 40 00 2 1 0 80 00 60 00 Liq uid Ra te (Sm 3/da y) PVT Meth od Black Oil To p No de Pres s ure 30 .322 R 0.00 (BARa ) Inflow Type Single Bran ch Flu id Oil Water Cu t 0.An nula r Pro duction Ve rtical Lift Corre la tio n Petroleum Exp erts 2 Relative Perm eab ility No Pre dictin g Pre s s u re a nd Tem perature (offs ho re) Te mp erature Mo del Roug h App ro xima tio n Solutio n No de Bottom Node Res e rvoir Pres s ure 0.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves 60 0 IPR Curve VL P Curve PDP NTNU.0 (m ) Gas Conin g No Artificial Lift Jet Pum p Surface Equip me nt Co rrelation Beg gs an d Brill Res e rvoir Mo del PI Entry Lift Typ e Tu bing In je ctio n .00 0 (p erce nt) 10 Com pletion Cas e d Ho le Flo w Typ e An nula r Bottom Meas ure d De pth27 48.0 (d eg C) Fie ld Statfjord JET Pum p Te s t .2 62 Well Eks em pe l An alys t BFS Date 16 Ja n 07 12 :16 Figure 13: Jet performance using different power fluid injection rates.0 (m ) Grave l Pa ck No Well Type Pro ducer Bottom True Vertical Depth27 48.00 4=800 .0 (m ) Gas Conin g No Artificial Lift Jet Pum p Surface Equip me nt Co rrelation Beg gs an d Brill Res e rvoir Mo del PI Entry Lift Typ e Tu bing In je ctio n .00 1=200 .

. 1989) 88 . H.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. (Petrie.L. June 2007 Figure 15: Jet Pump nozzle and throat sizes from 3 manufacturers. 1983) Figure 16: General Jet Pump Nozzle/Throat combinations (Allan et al. et al.. Kobe. National and Guiberson.

00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Inters ection Dis Allow Res ervoir Tem perature 92.000 (percent) Com pletion Cas ed Hole Flow Type Annular Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord JET Pum p Tes t . Cavitation occurs where the throat pressure is drawn below the produced fluids vapour pressure (Christ. F. PDP = Pump Discharge Pressure. June 2007 Figure 17: Pressure history of produced fluid as it enters and travels through the jet pump. H.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.C.084 At 0. Petrie.262 Well Eks em pel Analys t BFS Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Figure 18: Jet Pump performance curves. 1989) Inflow v Outflow Curves .1 well flowing @ 5000 Sm^3/d 600 IPR Curve VLP Curve PDP 500 Pressure (BARa) 400 300 200 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Liquid Rate (Sm 3/day) PVT Method Black Oil Top Node Pres s ure 30.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.Annular Production Vertical Lift Correlation Petroleum Experts 2 Relative Perm eability No Predicting Pres s ure and Tem perature (offs hore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Res ervoir Pres s ure 250.L.322 R 0.0 (m ) Gas Coning No Artificial Lift Jet Pum p Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill Res ervoir Model PI Entry Lift Type Tubing Injection . (PROSPER generated) 89 .Nozzle (15) Throat (3) An 0.

0 (m ) Gas Coning No Artificial Lift Jet Pum p Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill Reservoir Model PI Entry Lift Type Tubing Injection .Nozzle (15) Throat (3) An 0.(PROSPER generated) 90 . June 2007 Inflow v Outflow Curves . PDP = Pump Discharge Pressure.Annular Production Vertical Lift Correlation Petroleum Experts 2 Relative Perm eability No Predicting Pressure and Tem perature (offshore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Reservoir Pres sure 100.322 R 0.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Intersection Dis Allow Reservoir Tem perature 92.262 Well Eksem pel Analyst BFS Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Figure 19: Jet Pump performance curves.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord JET Pum p Test .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.084 At 0.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.000 (percent) Com pletion Cased Hole Flow Type Annular Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.1 well flowing @ 3750 Sm^3/d 600 IPR Curve VLP Curve PDP 450 Pressure (BARa) 300 150 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Liquid Rate (Sm 3/day) PVT Method Black Oil Top Node Press ure 30.

1 well flowing @ 2500 Sm^3/d 400 IPR Curve VLP Curve PDP NTNU.0 (m ) Gas Coning No Artificial Lift Jet Pum p Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill Reservoir Model PI Entry Lift Type Tubing Injection .00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord JET Pum p Test .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves .00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Intersection Dis Allow Reservoir Tem perature 92.628 R 0.Nozzle (17) Throat (4) An 0.(PROSPER generated) 91 .210 Well Eksem pel Analyst BFS Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Figure 20: Jet Pump performance curves. PDP = Pump Discharge Pressure.000 (percent) Com pletion Cased Hole Flow Type Annular Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.Annular Production Vertical Lift Correlation Petroleum Experts 2 Relative Perm eability No Predicting Pressure and Tem perature (offshore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Reservoir Pres sure 70. June 2007 300 Pressure (BARa) 200 100 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Liquid Rate (Sm 3/day) PVT Method Black Oil Top Node Press ure 30.132 At 0.

00 10000.00 12000. Hydraulic Efficiency vs.0 Nozzle 20 10.0 Nozzle 16 Hydraulic Efficiency.00 Figure 22: Nozzle/Throat selection for Case B.00 4000. Case A 40 35 16E 30 25 Nozzle 16 Nozzle 17 Hydraulic Efficiency.0 30. 92 .0 16E 25.00 Power. Power Requirement 35. [HP] 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 Figure 21: Nozzle/Throat selection for Case A.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.0 0. [%] Nozzle 18 20 Nozzle 19 Nozzle 20 15 10 5 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Power.00 6000. [HP] 8000.0 5. [%] 20.0 Nozzle 17 Nozzle 18 Nozzle 19 15. Power Requirement.00 2000. June 2007 Hydraulic Efficiency vs.0 0.

00 Figure 23: Nozzle/Throat selection for Case C.0 30.00 4000.00 6000.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. June 2007 Hydraulic Efficiency vs.00 10000. power requirement 35.0 Nozzle 16 Hydraulic Efficiency.0 0.0 0. 93 . [HP] 8000. [%] 20.00 14000.00 Power.0 19B 25.00 12000.0 Nozzle 17 Nozzle 18 15.00 2000.0 Nozzle 19 Nozzle 20 10.0 5.

Pf equals flowing bottomhole pressure.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. 94 . June 2007 Figure 24: Effect of gas injection on flowing gradient.

00 3 240 2 1 2 1 0 Pressure (BARa) 0 160 80 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Liquid Rate (Sm 3/day) PVT Method Black Oil Top Node Press ure 30.0 (m ) Gas Coning No Artificial Lift Gas Lift Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill Reservoir Model PI Entry Lift Type Friction Los s In Annulus Vertical Lift Correlation Beggs and Brill 0.00 2=250.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord Well Eksem pel Analyst BFS Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Figure 25: Illustration of gas-lift performance at various reservoir pressures.00 1=225.95 0.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves 320 NTNU.48 Perm eability No Relative Predicting Pressure and Tem perature (offshore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Reservoir Pres sure 250. June 2007 Variables 1:Reservoir Pressure (BARa) 1 2 0=200.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Intersection Dis Allow Reservoir Tem perature 92.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100. (PROSPER generated) 95 .000 (percent) Com pletion Cased Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.

00 2=6.48 Perm eability No Relative Predicting Pressure and Tem perature (offshore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Reservoir Pres sure 250.000 (percent) Com pletion Cased Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves 400 NTNU.0 (m ) Gas Coning No Artificial Lift Gas Lift Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill Reservoir Model PI Entry Lift Type Friction Los s In Annulus Vertical Lift Correlation Beggs and Brill 0. (PROSPER generated) 96 . June 2007 Variables 3:Tubing/Pipe Diameter (inches ) 1 2 1 3 0=2.00 1=4.95 0.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord Well Eksem pel Analyst BFS Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Figure 26: Illustration of gas-lift performance at various tubing sizes.00 3=8.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Intersection Dis Allow Reservoir Tem perature 92.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.00 300 Pressure (BARa) 0 3 2 1 0 2 3 200 100 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Liquid Rate (Sm 3/day) PVT Method Black Oil Top Node Press ure 30.

00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Res ervoir Tem perature 92.48 ervoir Model PI Entry Res Lift Type Friction Los s In Annulus Relative Perm eability No Predicting Pres s ure and Tem perature (offs hore) Solution Node Bottom Node Temperature Model Rough Approximation Left-Hand Inters ection Dis Allow Res ervoir Pres s ure 250.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord Well Eks em pel Analys t BFS Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Figure 27: Illustration of gas-lift performance at various wellhead pressures.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves 320 NTNU.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Gas Coning No Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill Artificial Lift Gas Lift Vertical Lift Correlation Beggs and Brill 0. June 2007 Variables 1:Firs t Node Pres s ure (BARa) 1 2 0=5.00 5=30.000 (percent) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.0 (m ) Com pletion Cas ed Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.00 2=15.00 5 4 3 2 1 0 3 240 5 4 3 2 1 0 Pressure (BARa) 160 80 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Liquid Rate (Sm 3/day) PVT Method Black Oil Water Cut 100.95 0. 97 .00 4=25.00 3=20.00 1=10. (PROSPER generated) Figure 28: Example of a Gas Lift performance curve.

net) 98 . the pressure valve (IPO). June 2007 Variables 3:Casing Pressure (BARa) 1 2 1 0 3 0=50.95 0.000 (percent) Com pletion Cased Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.48 Perm eability No Relative Predicting Pressure and Tem perature (offshore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Reservoir Pres sure 250.00 1=100.valve-world.00 3=200.0 (m ) Gas Coning No Artificial Lift Gas Lift Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill Reservoir Model PI Entry Lift Type Friction Los s In Annulus Vertical Lift Correlation Beggs and Brill 0. To the left.00 2=150.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves 320 NTNU. (PROSPER generated) Figure 30: Two different valve-concepts.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Intersection Dis Allow Reservoir Tem perature 92.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.00 240 3 2 1 0 2 3 Pressure (BARa) 160 80 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Liquid Rate (Sm 3/day) PVT Method Black Oil Top Node Press ure 30.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748. to the right the Fluid Valve (PPO). (www.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord Well Eksem pel Analyst BFS Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Figure 29: Illustration of gas-lift performance at various casing pressures.

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. 99 . The gas composition is given in table 11. (PROSPER help-manual) Figure 32: HYSYS generated envelope for the Statfjord lift-gas (year 2009). June 2007 Figure 31: Example on mandrel and valve spacing for PPO-configured gas lift string.

000 (bar) Maximum Depth Of Inj ecti on2748. June 2007 0 0 30 60 90 120 GASLIFT DESIGN (NEW WELL) REPORT Val ve Type Casi ng Sensiti ve Mi n CHP Decrease Per Valve 3.000 (percent) Mi nimum Spaci ng 76.0 (deg C) Figure 33: Gas lift design for Case A.00 (BARa) Ki ck-Off Inj ecti on Pressure180.48 Pi pe Correlati on Beggs and Bri ll Use IPR For Unl oading Yes Orifi ce Si zi ng Method Cal culated dP At Ori fice Val ve Manufacturer Val ve1 Val ve Type R-20 Val ve Speci ficati on Monel Maximum Gas Avai lable 00.0 (Sm3/Sm3) ACTUAL Liqui d Rate5000.00 (BARa) Operati ng Injection Pressure180.00 (BARa) Reservoi r Temperature 92.0 (m) Water Cut 100.00 (BARa) Unl oading Top Node Pressure 30.00 (BARa) Desi red dP Across Valve 1.000 (1000Sm3/d) 2 Fl owi ng Top Node Pressure 30. (PROSPER generated) 100 .000 (bar) Total GOR 20.5 (Sm3/day) ACTUAL Oil Rate 0 (Sm3/day) ACTUAL Gas Injection Rate 96.11 (BARa) 700 True Vertical Depth (m) 1400 Val ve 2100 Val ve Orifi ce 2800 0 60 120 180 240 Pressure (BARa) PVT Method Bl ack Oil Pressure Fl ui d Oi l Temperature Fl ow Type Tubing Operati ng Gas Gradi ent Wel l Type Producer Unl oading Gradient Arti ficial Li ft Gas Lift Mi nimum Pressure Li ft Type Fri ction Loss In Annulus P Min Predi cti ng Pressure and Temperature (offshore) P Max Temperature Model Rough Approximati on Casi ng dP At Val ve Company Statoi l Fi el d Statfj ord Wel l Eksempel Analyst BFS Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Inflow Type Si ngl e Branch Completi on Cased Hol e Gravel Pack No Gas Coni ng No Reservoi r Model PI Entry Rel ati ve Permeabi l ity No Reservoi r Pressure 250.103 (bar/m) Mi nimum Transfer dP 25. based on input parameters presented in Table 12 (IPO Valves).2 (m) Static Gradi ent Of Load Fl uid 0.5 (Sm3/day) Check Rate Conformance With IPR Yes Dome Pressure Correction Above 1200psi g No Inj ection Poi nt Inj ection Poi nt i s ORIFICE Val ve Setti ng Fi rst Valve PVo = Gas Pressure Tubing Correl ation Beggs and Bri ll 0.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Temperature (deg C) NTNU.00 (percent) Safety For Closure Of Last Unloadi ng Val ve 2.000 (1000Sm3/d) 2 Maximum Gas Duri ng Unl oading00.052 (1000Sm3/d) 1 ACTUAL Inj ecti on Pressure171.4. Chapter 6.447 (bar) Desi gn Rate Method Entered By User Desi gn Li qui d Rate5000.95 0.

5 (Sm3/day) Check Rate Conformance With IPR Yes Dome Pressure Correction Above 1200psig No Injection Point Injection Point is ORIFICE Tubing Correlation Beggs and Brill 0. (HYSYS generated) 101 .00 (percent) Safety For Closure Of Last Unloading Valve 2.0 (deg C) Figure 34: Gas lift design for Case A.48 Pipe Correlation Beggs and Brill Use IPR For Unloading Yes Orifice Sizing Method Calculated dP At Orifice Valve Manufacturer Valve1 Valve Type R-20 Valve Specification Monel Maximum Gas Available 00.00 (BARa) Unloading Top Node Pressure 30.00 (BARa) Desired dP Across Valve 1.00 (BARa) Operating Injection Pressure180.00 (percent) Design Rate Method Entered By User Design Liquid Rate5000. June 2007 0 0 30 60 90 120 GASLIFT DESIGN (NEW WELL) REPORT Valve Type Tubing Sensitive Percent Pcasing-Pwh 30. (PROSPER generated) Figure 35: Flow chart for the lift-gas compression process.000 (1000Sm3/d) 2 Maximum Gas During Unloading00.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Temperature (deg C) (Eksempel 08 May 07 13:15) NTNU.0 (Sm3/Sm3) ACTUAL Liquid Rate5000.00 (BARa) 700 True Vertical Depth (m) 1400 Valve 2100 Valve Valve Valve Orifice 2800 0 60 120 180 240 Pressure (BARa) PVT Method Black Oil Pressure Fluid Oil Temperature Flow Type Tubing Operating Gas Gradient Well Type Producer Unloading Gradient Artificial Lift Gas Lift Minimum Pressure Lift Type Friction Loss In Annulus P Min Predicting Pressure and Temperature (offshore) P Max Temperature Model Rough Approximation Casing dP At Valve Company Statoil Field Statfjord Well Eksempel Analyst BFS Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Inflow Type Single Branch Completion Cased Hole Gravel Pack No Gas Coning No Reservoir Model PI Entry Relative Permeability No Reservoir Pressure 250.000 (1000Sm3/d) 2 Flowing Top Node Pressure 30.95 0.5 (Sm3/day) ACTUAL Oil Rate 0 (Sm3/day) ACTUAL Gas Injection Rate 88.4.00 (BARa) Reservoir Temperature 92.000 (bar) Maximum Depth Of Injection2748. Chapter 6.103 (bar/m) Minimum Transfer dP 25.0 (m) Water Cut 100.000 (bar) Total GOR 20.2 (m) Static Gradient Of Load Fluid 0.00 (BARa) Kick-Off Injection Pressure180. based on input parameters presented in Table 13 (PPO Valves).000 (percent) Minimum Spacing 76.760 (1000Sm3/d) 1 ACTUAL Injection Pressure180.

1 well flowing @ 5000 Sm^3/d 320 NTNU.95 0.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.0 (m ) Gas Coning No Artificial Lift Gas Lift Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill Reservoir Model PI Entry Lift Type Friction Los s In Annulus Vertical Lift Correlation Beggs and Brill 0.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord Well Eksem pel Analyst BFS Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Figure 36: Gas Lift performance curves for Case A. June 2007 240 Pressure (BARa) 160 80 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Liquid Rate (Sm 3/day) PVT Method Black Oil Top Node Press ure 30.000 (percent) Com pletion Cased Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth2748. (PROSPER generated) 102 .48 Perm eability No Relative Predicting Pressure and Tem perature (offshore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Reservoir Pres sure 250.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Intersection Dis Allow Reservoir Tem perature 92.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves .

00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.0 2=200. E= Erosional Velocity Limit Exceeded (high dP friction for the marked flowrates).0 4=400.00 1=100. Case B and C (Reservoir pressure at 100 and 70 bara).0 3 Pressure (BARa) E E 160 E E E 11 16 06 E E 01 15 14 12 05 13 04 02 03 80 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 07 06 05 04 03 02 01 00 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Liquid Rate (Sm 3/day) PVT Method Black Oil Top Node Press ure 30.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord Well Eksem pel Analyst BFS Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Figure 37: Gas Lift Performance curves for different values of injected GLR. June 2007 240 E E E 17 07 E 10 00 E Variables 1:Reservoir Pressure (BARa) 2:GLR Injected (Sm 3/Sm 3) 1 2 0=70.0 6=600.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Intersection Dis Allow Reservoir Tem perature 92. (PROSPER generated).0 1=100.0 (m ) Gas Coning No Artificial Lift Gas Lift Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill Reservoir Model PI Entry Lift Type Friction Los s In Annulus Vertical Lift Correlation Beggs and Brill 0.Case B & C 320 NTNU.0 5=500.48 Perm eability No Relative Predicting Pressure and Tem perature (offshore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Reservoir Pres sure 70.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves .95 0.00 0=50.0 3=300.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.000 (percent) Com pletion Cased Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.0 7=1000. 103 .

000 (percent) Com pletion Cas ed Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.48 Res e rvoir Mo del PI Entry 1 Xma s Tree 0 (m ) Relative Perm eab ility No 3 Tubing 274 8.0 (m ) Gas Coning No Artificial Lift Gas Lift Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill Res ervoir Model PI Entry Lift Type Friction Los s In Annulus Vertical Lift Correlation Beggs and Brill 0.95 0.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Inters ection Dis Allow Res ervoir Tem perature 92.Modified Case B 280 E 210 E Pressure (BARa) E E E 140 70 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Liquid Rate (Sm 3/day) PVT Method Black Oil Top Node Pres s ure 5. (PROSPER generated) Inflow v Outflow Curves .48 Perm eability No Relative Predicting Pres s ure and Tem perature (offs hore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Res ervoir Pres s ure 100.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.00 (BARa ) 10 Res e rvoir Tem pe ra tu re 92 .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Gas Lift Performance Curve 28 00 NTNU.0 (m ) Inflow Type Com pletion Grave l Pa ck Gas Conin g Single Bran ch Cas e d Ho le No No Beg gs an d Brill Beg gs an d Brill 0. 104 .0 (deg C) Field Statfjord Well Eks em pel Analys t BFS Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Figure 39: Inflow/outflow curves for Appendix B.2 (PROSPER generated). June 2007 26 00 Liquid Rate (Sm3/day) 24 00 22 00 20 00 0 30 0 60 0 90 0 12 00 GLR In je cte d (Sm 3/Sm 3) PVT Meth od Black Oil Bottom Meas ure d De pth Flu id Oil Bottom True Vertical Depth Flo w Typ e Tu bing Surface Equip me nt Co rrelation Well Type Pro ducer Ve rtical Lift Corre la tio n Artificial Lift Gas Lift Lift Typ e Friction Los s In An nulus Firs t No de Pre dictin g Pre s s u re a nd Tem perature (offs ho re) La s t No de Te mp erature Mo del Roug h App ro xima tio n Com pan y Statoil Fie ld Statfjord Well Eks em pe l An alys t BFS Date 16 Ja n 07 12 :16 27 48.0 (d eg C) Figure 38: Gas Lift Performance Chart for Appendix B.2.0 (m ) 27 48.0 ) (m Res e rvoir Pres s ure 0.95 0.

00 (BARa) 700 True Vertical Depth (m) Val ve 1400 Val ve 2100 2800 Orifi ce 0 40 80 120 160 Pressure (BARa) PVT Method Bl ack Oil Pressure Fl ui d Oi l Temperature Fl ow Type Tubing Operati ng Gas Gradi ent Wel l Type Producer Unl oading Gradient Arti ficial Li ft Gas Lift Mi nimum Pressure Li ft Type Fri ction Loss In Annulus P Min Predi cti ng Pressure and Temperature (offshore) P Max Temperature Model Rough Approximati on Casi ng dP At Val ve Company Statoi l Fi el d Statfj ord Wel l Eksempel Analyst BFS Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Inflow Type Si ngl e Branch Completi on Cased Hol e Gravel Pack No Gas Coni ng No Reservoi r Model PI Entry Rel ati ve Permeabi l ity No Reservoi r Pressure 100.0 (Sm3/Sm3) ACTUAL Liqui d Rate 2645. June 2007 0 0 30 60 90 120 GASLIFT DESIGN (NEW WELL) REPORT Val ve Type Tubing Sensitive Percent Pcasi ng-Pwh 30. (PROSPER generated) Figure 41: Flow chart for the lift-gas compression process.000 (bar) Total GOR 20. Appendix B.2.0 (deg C) Figure 40: Gas lift design for Appendix B.00 (BARa) Desi red dP Across Valve 1.00 (BARa) Reservoi r Temperature 92.3 (Sm3/day) Check Rate Conformance With IPR Yes Dome Pressure Correction Above 1200psi g No Inj ection Poi nt Inj ection Poi nt i s ORIFICE Tubing Correl ation Beggs and Bri ll 0.000 (1000Sm3/d) Fl owi ng Top Node Pressure 5.3 (Sm3/day) ACTUAL Oil Rate 0 (Sm3/day) ACTUAL Gas Injection Rate848.00 (BARa) Ki ck-Off Inj ecti on Pressure 130.48 Pi pe Correlati on Beggs and Bri ll Use IPR For Unl oading Yes Orifi ce Si zi ng Method Cal culated dP At Ori fice Val ve Manufacturer McMurry-Macco Val ve Type RF-2 Val ve Speci ficati on Normal Maximum Gas Avai lable 1200.000 (percent) 1 Mi nimum Spaci ng 76.000 (1000Sm3/d) Maximum Gas Duri ng Unl oading 1200.00 (percent) Safety For Closure Of Last Unloadi ng Val ve 2.00 (BARa) Unl oading Top Node Pressure 5.00 (percent) Desi gn Rate Method Entered By User Desi gn Li qui d Rate 2645.2.2 (m) Static Gradi ent Of Load Fl uid 0.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Temperature (deg C) (Eksempel 29 May 07 12:23) NTNU.000 (bar) Maximum Depth Of Inj ecti on 2748. based on input parameters presented in Table 17 (PPO Valves).0 (m) Water Cut 00. (HYSYS generated) 105 .103 (bar/m) Mi nimum Transfer dP 25.00 (BARa) Operati ng Injection Pressure 130.205 (1000Sm3/d) ACTUAL Inj ecti on Pressure 130.95 0.

(PROSPER generated) Inflow v Outflow Curves .0 3 180 E E E E 0 E Pressure (BARa) E E E 120 E 60 0 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Liquid Rate (Sm 3/day) PVT Method Black Oil Top Node Press ure 5.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord Well Eksem pel Analyst BFS Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Figure 43: Inflow/outflow curves for Appendix B.95 0.Modified Case C 240 Variables 2:GLR Injected (Sm 3/Sm 3) 1 2 0=500.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Intersection Dis Allow Reservoir Tem perature 92.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Gas Lift Performance Plot 1540 NTNU.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.00 (BARa) Reservoir Tem perature 92. 106 .0 (deg C) Figure 42: Gas Lift Performance Chart for Appendix B. June 2007 1470 Liquid Rate (Sm3/day) 1400 1330 1260 0 300 600 900 1200 GLR Injected (Sm 3/Sm 3) PVT Method Black Oil Bottom Meas ured Depth Fluid Oil Bottom True Vertical Depth Flow Type Tubing Surface Equipment Correlation Well Type Producer Vertical Lift Correlation Artificial Lift Gas Lift Lift Type Friction Los s In Annulus First Node Predicting Pressure and Tem perature (offshore) Last Node Temperature Model Rough Approximation Com pany Statoil Field Statfjord Well Eksem pel Analyst BFS Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Inflow Type Single Branch 2748.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Beggs and Brill Gas Coning No Beggs and Brill 0.48 Perm eability No Relative Predicting Pressure and Tem perature (offshore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Reservoir Pres sure 70.000 (percent) Com pletion Cased Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.0 (m ) Gas Coning No Artificial Lift Gas Lift Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill Reservoir Model PI Entry Lift Type Friction Los s In Annulus Vertical Lift Correlation Beggs and Brill 0.0 ) (m Reservoir Pres sure 70.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.48 Reservoir Model PI Entry 1 Xmas Tree 0 ) (m Relative Perm eability No 3 Tubing 2748.95 0.3 (PROSPER generated).0 (m ) Com pletion Cased Hole 2748.3.

000 (bar) Maximum Depth Of Injection2748.3.00 (BARa) Operating Injection Pressure110.2 (Sm3/day) ACTUAL Oil Rate 0 (Sm3/day) ACTUAL Gas Injection Rate 36.00 (BARa) 700 True Vertical Depth (m) Valve 1400 Valve 2100 Valve 2800 Orifice 0 40 80 120 160 Pressure (BARa) PVT Method Black Oil Pressure Fluid Oil Temperature Flow Type Tubing Operating Gas Gradient Well Type Producer Unloading Gradient Artificial Lift Gas Lift Minimum Pressure Lift Type Friction Loss In Annulus P Min Predicting Pressure and Temperature (offshore) P Max Temperature Model Rough Approximation Casing dP At Valve Company Statoil Field Statfjord Well Eksempel Analyst BFS Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Inflow Type Single Branch Completion Cased Hole Gravel Pack No Gas Coning No Reservoir Model PI Entry Relative Permeability No Reservoir Pressure 70.000 (1000Sm3/d) 9 Maximum Gas During Unloading00.0 (deg C) Figure 44: Gas lift design for Appendix B.3.2 (m) Static Gradient Of Load Fluid 0.000 (bar) Total GOR 20. (PROSPER generated) Figure 45: Flow chart for the lift-gas compression process.103 (bar/m) Minimum Transfer dP 25.95 0.2 (Sm3/day) Check Rate Conformance With IPR Yes Dome Pressure Correction Above 1200psig No Injection Point Injection Point is ORIFICE Tubing Correlation Beggs and Brill 0.00 (BARa) Desired dP Across Valve 1.00 (percent) Safety For Closure Of Last Unloading Valve 2.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Temperature (deg C) NTNU.0 (Sm3/Sm3) ACTUAL Liquid Rate1539.0 (m) Water Cut 100.00 (percent) Design Rate Method Entered By User Design Liquid Rate1539.00 (BARa) Reservoir Temperature 92. June 2007 0 0 30 60 90 120 GASLIFT DESIGN (NEW WELL) REPORT Valve Type Tubing Sensitive Percent Pcasing-Pwh 30.000 (percent) Minimum Spacing 76.00 (BARa) Kick-Off Injection Pressure110. Appendix B.000 (1000Sm3/d) 9 Flowing Top Node Pressure 5. (HYSYS generated) 107 .716 (1000Sm3/d) 7 ACTUAL Injection Pressure110. based on input parameters presented in Table 18 (PPO Valves).00 (BARa) Unloading Top Node Pressure 5.48 Pipe Correlation Beggs and Brill Use IPR For Unloading Yes Orifice Sizing Method Calculated dP At Orifice Valve Manufacturer Camco Valve Type BK-F6 Valve Specification Normal Maximum Gas Available 00.

June 2007 Figure 46: Illustration of elements influencing the Total Dynamic Head.bakerhughesdirect.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. (www.com) 108 .

00 1=40.0 0 4=25.TN1050C Well Eks em pel ESP Motor Analys t BFS ESP Cable #1 Copper Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Figure 48: ESP performance with different # pump stages.95 0. (PROSPER generated) 109 .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves 40 0 IPR Curve VL P Curve PDP NTNU.48 Perm eability No Relative Predicting Pres s ure and Tem perature (offs hore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Res ervoir Pres s ure 250.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.0 0 3=20.00 (BARa ) 25 Com pan y Statoil Res e rvoir Tem pe ra tu re 92 .0 (m ) Com pletion Cas e d Ho le Flo w Typ e Tu bing Bottom True Vertical Depth27 48.00 0 (p erce nt) 10 Inflow Type Single Bran ch Flu id Oil Bottom Meas ure d De pth27 48. (PROSPER generated).95 0. June 2007 Va riab les 1:Firs t No de Pres s ure (BARa) 1 2 0=5.000 (percent) Com pletion Cas ed Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.0 0 5=30.0 (m ) Gas Coning No Artificial Lift Electrical Subm ers ible Pum p Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill Res ervoir Model PI Entry Lift Type Vertical Lift Correlation Beggs and Brill 0.00 3=80.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.00 2=60.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Inters ection Dis Allow Res ervoir Tem perature 92.0 0 2=15.0 (d eg C) ESP Pum p ESP .00 3 450 Pressure (BARa) 360 3 2 1 0 3 270 2 1 0 3 2 1 0 180 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Liquid Rate (Sm 3/day) PVT Method Black Oil Top Node Pres s ure 30. Inflow v Outflow Curves 540 IPR Curve VLP Curve PDP Variables 1:Num ber of Stages 1 2 0=20.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord ESP Pum p ESP .48 e rvoir Mo del PI Entry Res Lift Typ e Relative Perm eab ility No Pre dictin g Pre s s u re a nd Tem perature (offs ho re) Solutio n No de Bottom Node Te mp erature Mo del Roug h App ro xima tio n Le ft-Ha nd Inte rs e ctio n Dis Allow Res e rvoir Pres s ure 0.0 0 3 35 0 Pressure (BARa) 30 0 5 4 3 2 1 0 5 4 3 2 1 0 25 0 5 4 3 2 1 0 20 0 0 20 00 40 00 60 00 80 00 Liq uid Ra te (Sm 3/da y) PVT Meth od Black Oil Water Cu t 0.0 (m ) Grave l Pa ck No Well Type Pro ducer Gas Conin g No Surface Equip me nt Co rrelation Beg gs an d Brill Artificial Lift Electrical Subm e rs ib le Pum p Ve rtical Lift Corre la tio n Beg gs an d Brill 0.00 1=10.TN10 50C Fie ld Statfjord ESP Mo to r Well Eks em pe l ESP Ca ble #1 Cop per An alys t BFS Date 16 Ja n 07 12 :16 Figure 47: ESP performance at varying wellhead pressures.

95 0.00 2=50.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100. (PROSPER generated) 110 .00 3 420 Pressure (BARa) 350 3 3 2 1 0 280 2 3 2 1 0 210 0 2000 4000 1 0 8000 6000 Liquid Rate (Sm 3/day) PVT Method Black Oil Top Node Pres s ure 30.TN1050C Well Eks em pel ESP Motor Analys t BFS ESP Cable #1 Copper Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Figure 49: ESP performance at various operating frequencies.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord ESP Pum p ESP .000 (percent) Com pletion Cas ed Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.0 (m ) Gas Coning No Artificial Lift Electrical Subm ers ible Pum p Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill Res ervoir Model PI Entry Lift Type Vertical Lift Correlation Beggs and Brill 0.00 3=60.48 Perm eability No Relative Predicting Pres s ure and Tem perature (offs hore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Res ervoir Pres s ure 250.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748. June 2007 Variables 1:Operating Frequency (Hertz) 1 2 0=30.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves 490 IPR Curve VLP Curve PDP NTNU.00 1=40.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Inters ection Dis Allow Res ervoir Tem perature 92.

June 2007 Figure 50: Performance curve for the Baker Hughes CENTRILIFT 675 – HC27000.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.bakerhughesdirect.com) Figure 51: Seal horsepower consumption chart for the Baker Hughes 513-series seal. 60 Hz Pump. (www. (www.com) 111 .bakerhughesdirect. The lines give the performance data for the given flow rate in Case A.

June 2007 Figure 52: Example of a Baker Hughes CENTRILIFT Motor performance curve.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. (www.com) 112 .bakerhughesdirect.

Cable power loss chart and Power cable specifications.bakerhughesdirect.com) 113 .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. June 2007 Figure 53: Technical specifications for the 725-series motor. (www.

60 Hz Pump. June 2007 Figure 54: Performance curve for the Baker Hughes CENTRILIFT 675 – HC27000.com) 114 . (www.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.bakerhughesdirect. The lines give the performance data for the given flow rate in Case B.

June 2007 Figure 55: Performance curve for the Baker Hughes CENTRILIFT 675 – HC20000.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. 60 Hz Pump.bakerhughesdirect. (www.com) 115 . The lines give the performance data for the given flow rate in Case C.

(PROSPER generated) 116 . June 2007 350 Pressure (BARa) 300 250 200 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Liquid Rate (Sm 3/day) PVT Method Black Oil Top Node Press ure 30.48 Perm eability No Relative Predicting Pressure and Tem perature (offshore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Reservoir Pres sure 250.TN1050C Well Eksem pel ESP Motor Analyst BFS ESP Cable #1 Copper Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Figure 56: ESP .performance curves.1 well flowing @ 5000 Sm^3/d 400 IPR Curve VLP Curve PDP NTNU.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Intersection Dis Allow Reservoir Tem perature 92.95 0. PDP = Pump Discharge Pressure.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves .00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.000 (percent) Com pletion Cased Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth 0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth 0 (m ) Gas Coning No Artificial Lift Electrical Subm ersible Pum p Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill Reservoir Model PI Entry Lift Type Vertical Lift Correlation Beggs and Brill 0.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord ESP Pum p ESP .

48 Perm eability No Relative Predicting Pressure and Tem perature (offshore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Reservoir Pres sure 100.95 0.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Intersection Dis Allow Reservoir Tem perature 92.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.1 well flowing @ 3750 Sm^3/d 800 IPR Curve VLP Curve PDP NTNU.000 (percent) Com pletion Cased Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth 0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth 0 (m ) Gas Coning No Artificial Lift Electrical Subm ersible Pum p Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill Reservoir Model PI Entry Lift Type Vertical Lift Correlation Beggs and Brill 0.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord ESP Pum p CENTRILIFT . June 2007 600 Pressure (BARa) 400 200 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Liquid Rate (Sm 3/day) PVT Method Black Oil Top Node Press ure 30.performance curves.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves .(PROSPER generated) 117 .IA600 Well Eksem pel ESP Motor Analyst BFS ESP Cable #1 Copper Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Figure 57: ESP . PDP = Pump Discharge Pressure.

0 (deg C) Field Statfjord ESP Pum p CENTRILIFT . PDP = Pump Discharge Pressure.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves .0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Intersection Dis Allow Reservoir Tem perature 92. June 2007 330 Pressure (BARa) 220 110 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Liquid Rate (Sm 3/day) PVT Method Black Oil Top Node Press ure 30.1 well flowing @ 2500 Sm^3/d 440 IPR Curve VLP Curve PDP NTNU.HC19000 Well Eksem pel ESP Motor Analyst BFS ESP Cable #1 Copper Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Figure 58: ESP . for ESP.performance curves. GL and Jet Pump.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100. 118 .48 Perm eability No Relative Predicting Pressure and Tem perature (offshore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Reservoir Pres sure 70. B and C.0 (m ) Gas Coning No Artificial Lift Electrical Subm ersible Pum p Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill Reservoir Model PI Entry Lift Type Vertical Lift Correlation Beggs and Brill 0.(PROSPER generated) Figure 59: Artificial Lift efficiency based on Case A.000 (percent) Com pletion Cased Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.95 0.

B and C.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. 119 . June 2007 Figure 60: Artificial Lift Effect Demand for Case A.

120 .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. June 2007 Figure 61: Artificial Lift Capex.

121 .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. June 2007 Figure 62: ESP Opex distribution.

Opex. Figure 64: Total estimated costs (Capex + Opex) for the ESP solution. June 2007 Figure 63: Average overall Artificial Lift efficiency vs.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. 122 .

June 2007 Figure 65: Total estimated costs (Capex + Opex) for the Jet Pump solution. Figure 66: Total estimated project costs (Capex + Opex). 123 .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.

For nomenclature. (2006).J. For Case A. June 2007 Appendixes Appendix A – Jet Pump Calculations Following are the Jet Pump calculations for Case A. B and C. it is referred to Pedersen.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. 124 . P. the well data can be found in Table 1.

June 2007 125 .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. June 2007 126 .

127 . to get the total power demand for all 10 wells. The calculations are conducted for 1 well and multiplied by 10 at the end.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. June 2007 These results seem reasonable for Case A. The results are further discussed in Chapter 5.4 Following are the Jet Pump calculations for Case B. Well data for Case B are enclosed as Table 2.

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. June 2007 128 .

June 2007 129 .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.

Well data for Case C are enclosed as Table 3. 130 . The calculations are conducted for 1 well and multiplied by 10 at the end. June 2007 These results seem reasonable for Case B.4 Finally follows the Jet Pump calculations for Case C.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. The results are further discussed in Chapter 5. to get the total power demand for all 10 wells.

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. June 2007 131 .

June 2007 132 .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. June 2007 133 .

June 2007 Appendix B. To reduce required compressor effect. equation (9): Inserting equation 18 into equation 9 yields: (19) The gas lift system is considered a closed system. year 2009). respectively. where (18) Adiabatic compression work. lowering the temperature of the compressor feed stream from 88 to about 20°C HYSYS calculates z and k values for the given gas composition (Table 11.4 134 . the gas-stream is run through a cooler before reaching the compressor.8722 k = 1. For the PPO-option we have: Z(@30bar/20°C) = 0.1 – Gas Lift calculations.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. Table 14 and 15 contains values for the PPO and IPOoptions. Case A Calculations for compressor effect. at the given inlet pressure and temperature. Case A: From the real gas law we have: . where the inlet pressure for the topside liftgas compressor is equal to the flowing wellhead pressure (30 bara).

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.4 Inserting an assumed compressor-efficiency on 85%.3. The results show that the manual calculations presented here are fairly accurate.8722 k = 1. we get: For the IPO-option we have: Z(@30bar/20°C) = 0.5 kW. The HYSYS compressor-effect value is used for further calculations in Chapter 6. June 2007 Based on the adiabatic compression work. HYSYS calculations for the IPO-alternative gave a compressor effect on 531. the IPO-option is chosen for further calculations. 135 . even though the above calculations show very little deviation in compressor power-demand for the two options. we get the compression effect by using equation (10): Inserting an assumed compressor-efficiency on 85%. we get: Hence. The HYSYS-flow chart for the process is shown as Figure 35.

The well produces at 2645. Table 17). Figure 41 shows the separation and compression process. The overall efficiency of the Gas Lift is calculated as in Chapter 6. Tubing dimensions are the same as used in Case A. The gas composition from year 2015 (Table 11) was used for the compressor-effect calculations.2 – Gas Lift calculations. Using an adiabatic compression efficiency of 85%.1 as: 136 . it is seen that the injected GLR (IGLR) representing the highest production flow rate is about 317. Case A: Useful and added effect for gas lift is defined in Chapter 6. the data used in the below calculations differ in wellhead backpressure and the producing volume flow rate. Case B Below follows a brief estimate of the gas lift efficiency when reducing the wellhead pressure for Case B to 5 bara. This corresponds to a water production of about 2645 Sm3/d. it is referred to Chapter 6. HYSYS was used. PROSPER is used to calculate tubing intake curves for different injected GLR values. HYSYS calculated the effect required to compress 849 MSm3/d from 5 to 130 bar (Figure 41) to be 5215 kW.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. Figure 40 shows a suggested Gas Lift tubing design. shown in Figure 37.5 Sm3/d using an IGLR of 317 Sm3/ Sm3 (849 MSm3/d injected gas. To calculate the compressor effect.3. For review and demonstration of the manual calculation method. where the gas stream is compressed from 5 to 130 bar. using PPO-valves which were found best suited for this Case. Referring to Figure 38. Table 17 contains the input data for Figure 39. Figure 39 shows the inflow/outflow –curves for the IGLR representing the highest water production (Figure 38).1 and 6. A Gas Lift performance plot for the modified Case B is shown in Figure 38. In comparison with Case B. The maximum casing pressure is 130 bar.3. June 2007 Appendix B.

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. The static fluid pressure at the perforations without gas lift is 265 bar (no flow). A Gas Lift performance plot for the modified Case C is shown in Figure 42.3 – Gas Lift calculations. using PPO-valves which were found best suited for this Case. Total Gas Lift efficiency for this case: Appendix B. Hence. it is seen that the injected GLR (IGLR) representing the highest production flow rate is about 500. Tubing dimensions are the same as used in Case A. 137 . The maximum casing pressure is 110 bar. shown in Figure 37. Figure 44 shows a suggested Gas Lift tubing design. Case C Below follows a brief estimate of the gas lift efficiency when reducing the wellhead pressure for Case C to 5 bara. while the flowing gradient is about 65 bar with gas lift (Highlighted in Table 17). Figure 43 shows the inflow/outflow –curves for the IGLR representing the highest water production (Figure 42). Production is 2645 Sm3/d (Table 17). Referring to Figure 42. In comparison with Case C. This gives a delta P equal to 200 bar. Table 18). PROSPER is used to calculate tubing intake curves for different injected GLR values. June 2007 Delta P is equal to the pressure at the perforations with no gas lift system minus the pressure at the perforations with a gas lift system. This corresponds to a water production of about 1539 Sm3/d. the data used in the below calculations differ in wellhead backpressure and the producing volume flow rate. The well produces at 1539 Sm3/d using an IGLR of 500 Sm3/ Sm3 (736 MSm3/d injected gas. Table 18 contains the input data for Figure 43.

3.1 and 6. This gives a delta P equal to 220 bar.3. Using an adiabatic compression efficiency of 85%. Case A: Useful and added effect for gas lift is defined in Chapter 6. Total Gas Lift efficiency for this case: 138 . Hence. The overall efficiency of the Gas Lift is calculated as in Chapter 6. June 2007 To calculate the compressor effect. where the gas stream is compressed from 5 to 110 bar. HYSYS calculated the effect required to compress 736 MSm3/d from 5 to 110 bar (Figure 45) to be 4226 kW.1 as: Delta P is equal to the pressure at the perforations with no gas lift system minus the pressure at the perforations with a gas lift system. For review and demonstration of the manual calculation method. The static fluid pressure at the perforations without gas lift is 265 bar (no flow).4 bar with gas lift (Highlighted in Table 18). Figure 45 shows the separation and compression process. HYSYS was used.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. Production is 1539 Sm3/d (Table 18). The gas composition from year 2020 (Table 11) was used for the compressor-effect calculations. while the flowing gradient is about 44. it is referred to Chapter 6.

and the GOR is as low as 20.2667 0.Basic data Input Data Pump Setting depth.Qi Water Cut .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.124 0.2 m g H wh Pfriction g Pwh g fluid 5000 Sm^3/d equals 31446.Production capacity For the Inflow Performance Curve for Case A.00135 7100 250 25000000 1 230 bar 30 bar 5000 Sm3/d 0.245 0.995 20 843 1030 10300 0. the producing gas is neglected in these calculations STEP 4 .d2 Tubing Id.Total dynamic Head TDH (Total Dynamic Head) = Hd + Ft + Hwh Total dynamic head delivered by the pump when pumping the desired volume Vertical distance between wellhead and the estimated producing fluid level at the expected capacity the head required to overcome friction loss in tubing.1397 0. the HC27000 is selected. 18.D Casing OD Casing ID.7 m (deltaPfriction retrieved from PROSPER) Pfriction Pwh fluid fluid g Ft Ft H wh 3396 ft fluid H wh 362.127 2748 92 23000000 3000000 0. June 2007 Appendix C – ESP Calculations Case A: Calculations for sizing the ESP Pump STEP 1 .6 bar 200.T Flowing bottomhole pressure.Pwh Desired flowrate.Pump type Selecting the type of Pump The predetermined production volume of 16.Wc Gas-oil ratio Oil gravity Water gravity Water gradient Oil viscosity Oil gradient PI Reservoir Pressure.7 m H tubingleng th Hfluidlevel g H fluidlevel fluid Pwf Hfluidlevel Pwf fluid g Pfriction Ft Head required to exceed wellhead pressure.d1 Tubing OD. the head required to overcome preset wellhead pressure Unit m m m m m m m °C Pa Pa Sm3/s Sm3/Sm3 kg/sm3 kg/sm3 Pa/m Pas Pa/m Sm^3/d/bar Pa Value 2748 0. it is referred to the Baker Hughes website.5 bbl/d 31446.8 m 1035. Total Dynamic Head (TDH) STEP 5 .Gas calculations As the producing volume of oil is very low compared to the water production. the head/stage (ft) is about For further information on the given pump and other pumps in the CENTRILIFT Pump Line .Pi Wellhead back pressure.103 bar/m 0.5 bbl/d 62 ft It is referred to Figure 50 for the performance curves that represent the Centrilift ESP pump most suited for the production volume of From CENTRILIFTs range of pumps.05787037 0. For the given production volume.d5 Tubing coupling OD.d4 Length of tubing Bottomhole temperature.9 m 139 . it is referred to Figure 9 (represented by line 4 in the plot) STEP 3 . Pr Number of wells Following the 9 step procedure from Centrilift STEP 2 .071 bar/m 250 bar Hd Ft Hwh Hd Hd 471.

June 2007 140 .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.

d5 Tubing coupling OD.Wc Gas-oil ratio Oil gravity Water gravity Water gradient Oil viscosity Oil gradient PI Reservoir Pressure.T Flowing bottomhole pressure. Pr Number of wells Following the 9 step procedure from Centrilift (ref) STEP 2 .5 bar 114.00135 7100 250 10000000 10 85 bar 30 bar 3750 Sm3/d 0.124 0.127 2748 92 8500000 3000000 0. the producing gas is neglected in these calculations STEP 4 . 24.4 m 141 .2667 0. the head required to overcome preset wellhead pressure Unit m m m m m m m °C Pa Pa Sm3/s Sm3/Sm3 kg/sm3 kg/sm3 Pa/m Pas Pa/m Sm^3/d/bar Pa Value 2748 0.Total dynamic Head TDH (Total Dynamic Head) = Hd + Ft + Hwh Total dynamic head delivered by the pump when pumping the desired volume Vertical distance between wellhead and the estimated producing fluid level at the expected capacity the head required to overcome friction loss in tubing.Production capacity For the Inflow Performance Curve for Case B.4 m g H wh Pfriction g Pwh g fluid 3750 Sm^3/d equals 23584.245 0. Total Dynamic Head (TDH) STEP 5 .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.Pump type Selecting the type of Pump The predetermined production volume of 9.Pi Wellhead back pressure.D Casing OD Casing ID.9 m (deltaPfriction retrieved from PROSPER) Pfriction Pwh fluid fluid g Ft Ft H wh 7823 ft fluid H wh 362.Pwh Desired flowrate.04340278 0.9 bbl/d 23584.8 m H tubingleng th Hfluidlevel g Hfluidlevel fluid Pwf Hfluidlevel Pwf fluid g Pfriction Ft Head required to exceed wellhead pressure.Gas calculations As the producing volume of oil is very low compared to the water production. it is referred to the Baker Hughes website. For the given production volume.Qi Water Cut .995 20 843 1030 10300 0.d2 Tubing Id.8 m 2384. it is referred to Figure 9 (represented by line 1 in the plot) STEP 3 .and the GOR is as low as 20. June 2007 Case B: Calculations for sizing the ESP Pump STEP 1 .d4 Length of tubing Bottomhole temperature. For further information on the given pump and other pumps in the CENTRILIFT Pump Line.071 bar/m 100 bar Hd Ft Hwh Hd Hd 1906. the HC27000 is selected.1397 0. the head/stage (ft) is about This is the assumed optimal pump for this flow rate.Basic data Input Data Pump Setting depth.9 bbl/d 80 ft It is referred to Figure 54 for the performance curves that represent the Centrilift ESP pump most suited for the production volume of From CENTRILIFTs range of pumps.103 bar/m 0.d1 Tubing OD.

June 2007 142 .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.

For further information on the given pump and other pumps in the CENTRILIFT Pump Line.Pi Wellhead back pressure. Total Dynamic Head (TDH) STEP 5 .35 bar 52.Gas calculations As the producing volume of oil is very low compared to the water production. it is referred to the Baker Hughes website.d2 Tubing Id.995 20 843 1030 10300 0.Wc Gas-oil ratio Oil gravity Water gravity Water gradient Oil viscosity Oil gradient PI Reservoir Pressure.103 bar/m 0.2 m H tubingleng th Hfluidlevel g Hfluidlevel fluid Pwf Hfluidlevel Pwf fluid g Pfriction Ft Head required to exceed wellhead pressure. it is referred to Figure 9 (represented by line 0 in the plot) STEP 3 .1 m 143 .Qi Water Cut .d4 Length of tubing Bottomhole temperature. June 2007 Case C: Calculations for sizing the ESP Pump STEP 1 . the HC2000 is selected.00135 7100 250 7000000 10 60 bar 30 bar 2500 Sm3/d 0.124 0.2667 0. the head required to overcome preset wellhead pressure Unit m m m m m m m °C Pa Pa Sm3/s Sm3/Sm3 kg/sm3 kg/sm3 Pa/m Pas Pa/m Sm^3/d/bar Pa Value 2748 0.02893519 0.3 bbl/d 82. the head/stage (ft) is about This is the assumed optimal pump for this flow rate.6 m (deltaPfriction retrieved from PROSPER) Pfriction Pwh fluid fluid g Ft Ft H wh 8430 ft fluid H wh 362.D Casing OD Casing ID.245 0.Pwh Desired flowrate.8 m 2569.6 m g H wh Pfriction g Pwh g fluid 2500 Sm^3/d equals 15723. 25.5 ft It is referred to Figure 55 for the performance curves that represent the Centrilift ESP pump most suited for the production volume of From CENTRILIFTs range of pumps.d5 Tubing coupling OD.T Flowing bottomhole pressure.Basic data Input Data Pump Setting depth. Pr Number of wells Following the 9 step procedure from Centrilift STEP 2 . For the given production volume.071 bar/m 70 bar Hd Ft Hwh Hd Hd 2154.d1 Tubing OD.Total dynamic Head TDH (Total Dynamic Head) = Hd + Ft + Hwh Total dynamic head delivered by the pump when pumping the desired volume Vertical distance between wellhead and the estimated producing fluid level at the expected capacity the head required to overcome friction loss in tubing.3 bbl/d 15723.Production capacity For the Inflow Performance Curve for Case A.Pump type Selecting the type of Pump The predetermined production volume of 4.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.and the GOR is as low as 20.1397 0. the producing gas is neglected in these calculations STEP 4 .127 2748 92 6000000 3000000 0.

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. June 2007 144 .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful