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

................... 9 3..........................................4 Gas lift principles ...........................................................................................................1 Main factors to control pump performance ....... 14 5........................................................................... 2 2..................... 12 5.............................1 Main factors to control pump performance ...............................................................................4 Evaluation of results ........................1 Presentation of ESP model ..................................................................Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU......... 17 5.....................................................................3 Model calculations ..........................................1 Presentation of Jet pump model ...........................................................2 ESP performance ............................. Introduction ........ The Statfjord Field ......... Application of Gas Lift ...................... June 2007 Table of contents 1. 38 7....2.................................1 Field overview .... 17 5............................ 5 3... 41 7.......................5 ESP principles ...................................................................... 22 6.................. 7 3....................... 3 2.......................................... 5 2................................... Application of Jet Pump ............................................................1 When is artificial lift required ............4 Evaluation of results ........................................... 25 6......2....... 7 3.... Application of Electrical Submersible Pump ........................2 Jet Pump sizing............................................. 24 6..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................2 Jet Pump performance ..................2............. 4 2.................................... 20 5.... 33 6........................ 29 6...... 38 7........2 Presentation of the planned re-development of Statfjord ..............................................................................................................................................................................2......................................................... 25 6............................................ 10 4......... 1 2.......................... 36 7.2 Gas lift design......................................................................................................... Case Description ................................................................................... Artificial Lift Literature Survey ...........................................................................................................................2......................2 Gas lift performance ........2 Comparison of offshore-applicable artificial lift methods ..................................................1 Presentation of Gas lift model ..................................1 Main factors to control gas lift performance ................................................................................3 Pumping of water to accelerate pressure drawdown .............................3 Jet Pump principles ... 41 iii ...................................................................................3 Model calculations ........................................................................................ 24 6......................................... 2 2.. 14 5........................................................................................................................................... 17 5.................................................................................

................. Conclusion .................................................. 47 8........................ 60 Figures ...................................................................................................................... 48 8........................................... Discussion .......................4 Evaluation of results ......................................................................................... Artificial Lift Opex Estimates for Statfjord . 56 12................................. June 2007 7............................................................ Case B ....... 134 Appendix B....................... 50 9.3 Model calculations ..... 45 8...1 Opex estimates using Jet Pump ....................................................................................................................................................... Case C ..........................................1 – Gas Lift calculations.........................................Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU........... 50 9............................................................................................................ 42 7..2 Capex estimates using Gas Lift ....3 Opex estimates using ESP .................................................................... 48 9....................................................................................................................2 ESP sizing ...................1 Capex estimates using Jet Pump ......2 – Gas Lift calculations............................................ 139 iv .................................................................................................................................. 53 11.................................................................. 58 Tables ................... 124 Appendix A – Jet Pump Calculations ..................................................................................................................................... 51 10....................................................................................................................................................................................... References ......................................................................................... 124 Appendix B........... 41 7........................... 51 9....................................2 Opex estimates using Gas Lift.............................. 137 Appendix C – ESP Calculations..........................................................2...... 47 8......... Artificial Lift Capex Estimates for Statfjord ................................................... 136 Appendix B............. Case A ................................................................................... 77 Appendixes ................3 – Gas Lift calculations.........................3 Capex estimates using ESP ....................................................

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

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

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

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

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

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

The two main reservoir sandstone units. The East Flank consists of slump fault blocks generated by gravitational failure at the crest of the field. where each platform is a combined drilling and production unit. The Statfjord Field Following is a short presentation of the Statfjord Field. 3. are divided by the Dunlin Group which mainly consists of shale. The Main Field which contains 85% of the STOIIP consists of a rotated fault block with the Brent Group and Statfjord Formation reservoirs. Geology The Statfjord Field is located on a late Jurassic rotated fault block. The structure and stratigraphy of the East Flank is complex. (Boge et al. members of the Brent Group and Statfjord Formation. In addition. The field is a part of the Tampen Area. 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%. The Brent Group is divided in Upper and Lower Brent. 2005) Geographical map for the Statfjord field and an overview illustration of the Tampen area can be found as Figure 7 and Figure 8. approximately 180 kilometres off the Norwegian coast. the Statfjord satellite fields (Statfjord Øst. straddling the UK – Norwegian line. converting the production and production facilities from oil to gas.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. 7 .. it is heavy faulted with internal faults and small scale structures making reservoir mapping challenging. The field is developed with three concrete platforms. It has a dip of approximately 6-7 degrees towards west-northwest. containing a general field overview as well as an introduction to the planned re-development of the field. June 2007 3.1 Field overview The Statfjord field is the largest producing oil field inn Europe in terms of recoverable reserves. It is located northwest of Bergen. Statfjord Nord and Sygna) and the Snorre Field are connected to the Statfjord Field facilities.

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

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

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

Figure 11 is based on data supplied and approved by Statoil ASA.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. 11 .

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

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

Pi is the pump intake pressure in bar and Pp is the power fluid pressure in bar. June 2007 5.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. between the suction (producing) fluid and the power fluid is defined as: M mint ake mnozzle Qi Qp Qi . N. Mathematically it is defined as follows: N Pd Pp Pi . The dimensionless mass flow ratio. 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. 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. The model is based on experimental studies conducted at Tulsa University. 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 1985.1 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. Following is a short presentation of the model and its main principles. Application of Jet Pump 5. M. M. as a function of dimensionless mass flow ratio. Qp 14 . The model will hereafter be called the Tulsa model. Pd (3) where Pd is the pump discharge pressure in bar. is the pressure increase over the pump divided by the pressure difference between the drive fluid and the pump discharge. N.

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

as AWR=0. The analysis was done by a computer program. respectively. is in the Tulsa model set to 0. the right side of the equation simplifies to the constant 0. equivalent to GOR in a gas-oil system. K n . The equation for K td was developed using regression analysis. For single-phase flow. the importance of the loss parameters is obvious. This value was estimated in the Tulsa thesis from optimization based on high pressure data. performing a multiple linear least squares regression on the logarithms of the variables R. (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.33 (7) where R is the ratio of the nozzle to throat area.88 * 10 3 )( R p ) 2.04. R p and AWR (Air-Water-Ratio).63 R 0. 16 .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.33 ( AWR ) 0. R p is the ratio of the discharge pressure to the power fluid pressure and AWR is the air-water ratio. The expression is presented as: K td 0.1. June 2007 N B (1 K td )C .1 (10. The nozzle loss parameter. In the above expression of N. respectively. K td is a combination of the loss parameter for the throat K t and the diffuser K d .

the injection pressure is also an important factor when considering Jet Pump performance.1 Main factors to control pump performance For a pump with a given nozzle/throat relation. Tubing size has little or no influence on the Jet Pump performance. 5.2 Jet Pump performance 5. keeping the injection flow rate constant. As illustrated in Figure 13. one of the main factors to control the Jet Pump performance is the injection rate of the power fluid. Also.J. at fixed injection pressure. an increase in the injection flow rate.2 Jet Pump sizing Dimensioning a jet pump is an important part of a jet pump installation process.2. especially when producing free gas.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. The nozzle/throat relation and its influence on pump performance are discussed in the following Chapter..2. where the 17 . The nozzle/throat combination defines the degree of pump optimization and performance. it is referred to the thesis “Performance model for hydraulic jet pumping of two phase fluids” (Jiao. As shown. Due to this fact. Following is a description of these two important elements of Jet Pump sizing. the pressure of the injected power fluid can be varied. manufacturers of Jet Pumps have made a wide range of nozzles and throats available (Figure 15). P. June 2007 5. For further description of factors to control pump performance. 2006) by the author of this thesis. leads to higher pump discharge pressure and therefore higher production flow rate. 1988) and Chapter 4 of the earlier mentioned project (Pedersen. Figure 14 shows performance curves for different injection pressures. 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. 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.

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

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

8 and 9. Data tables for the PROSPER-generated curves are enclosed as Table 7. The calculations presented here represent the optimal combinations found. using Equation (1) and (2): As defined in Chapter 4. Figure 19 and Figure 20. the efficiency calculation method introduced in Chapter 4 is also applied.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. flowing at 5000 Sm3/d. 16E for Case B and 19B for Case C. representing one well each. For economic and practical purposes. June 2007 5. a free Jet Pump is chosen. For power fluid. For comparison. 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. These combinations are marked in the mentioned Figures. 2. 20 . 3 contains well data for the three cases.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. This is further discussed in Chapter 9. and the casing-tubing annulus is selected as the return conduit. according to the drawdown plan presented in Figure 11. The calculations in Appendix A were performed using different nozzle/throat combinations. useful effect is written as: Useful effect = where . The calculations are enclosed as Appendix A. Table 1. processed water with a gravity of 1000 kg/Sm3 is chosen. The pump supplier is selected to be “Kobe” (Figure 15). 16E for Case A. Figure 22 and Figure 23.2. The efficiency/power relations for the various combinations are found in Figure 21. is the pressure increase over the pump. 3750 Sm3/d and 2500 Sm3/d respectively.

Case B: Referring to Appendix A. The discharge pressure is calculated to be 326 bar (step 16 in the Case A calculations. Delta P for the given production is ~ 239 bar.1 % and a topside power requirement on 1820 kW. Overall Jet Pump efficiency: The results are further discussed in the next Chapter. As for Case A. the efficiency calculation method introduced in Chapter 4 is also applied. June 2007 The calculations in Appendix A for Case A gave a hydraulic efficiency of 33. Pump intake pressure is 230 bar (step 23). Overall Jet Pump efficiency: The total required input effect for all 10 wells are: 4006 kW x 10 = 40. The discharge pressure is calculated to be 324 bar (step 16 in the Case B calculations. Pump intake pressure is 85 bar (step 23). Delta P for the given production is ~ 96 bar.06 MW 21 .4 % and a topside power requirement on 4006 kW per well. Appendix A). using Equation (1) and (2). Case B calculations gave a hydraulic efficiency of 27.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Case A: NTNU. Appendix A).

calculating a hydraulic efficiency on 33. Appendix A). Case C: Case C calculations gave a hydraulic efficiency of 28. As for Case A and B. Delta P for the given production is ~ 266 bar.5%. the efficiency calculation method introduced in Chapter 4 is also applied.4 Evaluation of results Intuitively.1% and an overall efficiency on 30. this is proven to be correct. Pump intake pressure is 60 bar (step 23). for all three cases. In the calculations from the previous Chapter. The difference between hydraulic efficiency and overall efficiency is 2.4% and 25. The discharge pressure is calculated to be 326 bar (step 16 in the Case C calculations.5%.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. The combined hydraulic efficiency of the Jet Pump and surface Power Fluid Pump was. 5. calculating 27. the difference is 1. June 2007 Results further discussed in next Chapter. using Equation (1) and (2).8 % and a topside power requirement on 3177 kW per well. Overall Jet Pump efficiency: The total required input effect for all 10 wells are: 3177 kW x 10 = 31.6% for Case A. For Case B. higher than for the overall efficiency. 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. 22 .77 MW Results further discussed in next Chapter.9% for hydraulic and overall efficiency.

and some variables were adjusted so that the performance curves should represent the Jet Pump calculations for Case A.2 (Figure 1). it is seen that the results for all three cases falls within the expected efficiency range. while the blue line is the IPR curve and the red line represents the tubing intake pressure curve. Figure 19 represents Case B for Jet Pump.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. The relatively large difference for Case C is probably due to a fairly high friction pressure loss in the power fluid tubing. one well flowing at 3750 Sm3/d. This indicates that the calculations and results for the Jet Pump option should be fairly reasonable. The hydraulic efficiency is 28. the pump discharge pressure curve is represented by the black line.3.2%. Comparing the hydraulic efficiency calculations for Jet Pump (Appendix A) with the typical Jet Pump hydraulic efficiency range presented in Chapter 2. Figure 18 represents Case A for Jet Pump. Referring to the above mentioned Figures. one well flowing at 5000 Sm3/d. the calculated difference between the two efficiency measures is 4. and finally Figure 20 represents Case C. none of the nozzle/throat combinations found in PROSPER were equal to the ones selected in Chapter 5. Unfortunately. For Case C. which affects the overall efficiency. PROSPER was used to generate performance curves for the cases using Jet Pump. B and C. The closest values to the nozzle/throat configuration used here were selected in PROSPER.8% while the overall efficiency is 24.6%. 23 . June 2007 respectively. one well flowing at 2500 Sm3/d.

the paper “New and Expected Developments in Artificial Lift” (Lea. represented by equation (1) and (2). The model is presented in the paper “Report on the Calibration of Positive Flow Beans as Manufactured by Thornhill-Craver Company Inc. the “Beggs and Brill”-correlation (Beggs. For pressure loss and flow calculations.. The denominator of the gas lift efficiency equation will be the required effect of the surface gas compressor. Gas is less dense than the normal production fluids.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. The equation form of this flow-behaviour model can be written as: . As for the other artificial lift calculations. PROSPER was used.H. Brill. H. The efficiency of the total gas lift is mainly depending on the efficiency of the topside process-systems. accordingly will injection of gas in the production tubing result in a lowering of density in the total producing fluid. Winkler. the valve-setting. June 2007 6. J.. Gas lift design includes pressure drop calculations for annulus. 1994) defines the useful effect (work/time) as . For flow through valves and orifices. from 1946.L. 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.W.3 is the same as presented in Chapter 4. the casing/tubing size.F. the program uses the “Thornhill-Craver”-model. F. tubing and valves. (8) 24 . J.P. the density of the producing fluid and the pressure conditions in the well.. The method for calculating the total efficiency of a gas lift system used in Chapter 6. For gas lift. 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. the composition of the lift-gas.” by Cook. H.D.1 Presentation of Gas lift model The main task of a gas lift system is to reduce the weight of the producing fluid column. and Dotterweich. Application of Gas Lift 6. H. 1973) is used for computing tubing and casing-tubing annulus pressure loss.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Statoil ASA) As pointed out in Chapter 6.2. For the IPO option. and the two gas lift designs are illustrated in Figure 33 (IPO) and Figure 34 (PPO).625’’ OD.76 MSm3/d.11 bar.2. A gas lift string design was performed using PROSPER. The Figure shows that this option gives shallower injection depth.9’’ ID and 7.3 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). 33 .1. Maximum available volume flow rate of lift-gas per well is 200 MSm3/d. For Case A: The gas composition for the lift-gas is given in Table 11. and maximum casing pressure (lift-gas pressure at wellhead) is set to 180 bar. As highlighted in the previous Chapter. Table 11).2.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. and the tubing-size considered optimal was 6. The input parameters and selections are presented in Table 12 and 13 respectively. Calculations were conducted for various tubing sizes. but requires less number of mandrels and valves. shown in Figure 33. while the required volume flow rate of lift-gas is calculated to be 188. according to the drawdown plan presented in Figure 11. the size of the production tubing affects the gas lift performance significantly.0 MSm3/d and the required casing pressure is 171. The injection pressure is kept fixed at 180 bar. in accordance with the design methods and parameters presented in Chapter 6. and the envelope for the gas is plotted in Figure 32 (based on the values for year 2009. June 2007 6. the volume flow rate of lift-gas required is 196. Two different designs are presented. as seen in Figure 34. the PPO option gives deeper injection but more mandrels and valves required. One using IPO valves and one using PPO valves.

while the second cooler outlet stream is 88 °C and 171. where the separator inlet stream equals the flowing wellhead production stream. through a compressor.1 bar. equation (1) is used: Useful and added effect for gas lift is defined in Chapter 6. the gas stream flows from the separator to a cooler.5 kW Overall gas lift system efficiency for Case A: 34 . Based on assumptions and calculations made in Appendix B. For the overall Gas Lift system efficiency. The separator inlet stream is 88 °C and 30 bar.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. This gives a delta P equal to 61 bar. and finally through a second cooler.1.1 to be 531. The static fluid pressure at the perforations without gas lift is 265 bar (no flow) while the flowing gradient with gas lift. calculated in Appendix B. Useful effect is calculated: Added effect equals compressor effect. it is referred to Appendix B.1. The gas lift system is considered a closed system. As seen in the Figure. the valve-option resulting in the lowest compressor-effect demand is selected. which can be found highlighted in Table 10. a flow chart of the lift-gas compression process at Statfjord was prepared and is presented in Figure 35. June 2007 In this thesis. 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. For the detailed compressor-calculations and valve selection. calculations show that the IPO valves are most suited.1. For this Case. is 204 bar.

gas gravity and delta P across valve.7% for the given conditions. Referring to Figure 37. The calculations for the modified Case B show an overall Gas Lift efficiency of 11. For Case B: A plot was prepared in PROSPER (Figure 37). which results in lower production flow rate. which corresponds to an injected GasLiquid Ratio of about 1000. according to the above mentioned Figure.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. reservoir pressure 100 bara) requires an unreasonably high injected GLR to produce. the higher the friction pressure loss. 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). this Case (Figure 37: upper inflow line. This plot is based on the same tubing size as used for Case A and maximum gas injection depth (2748 m). 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). June 2007 Inflow and tubing performance curves for the Gas lift Case A is shown in Figure 36.2. As illustrated in Figure 37. The steeper the curve. A production rate of about 1600 Sm3/d is reached when injecting 1600 MSm3/d. Gas Lift is not a feasible lift method for Case B. Calculations are found as Appendix B. injected GLR. These values are valve depths. wellhead pressure in Case B was set to 5 bara and calculations were performed. First and foremost. The Figure shows one well on Gas Lift producing at 5000 Sm3/d. PROSPER input values are enclosed as Table 16. 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. 35 . Clearly. it is seen that the tubing performance curves representing the higher injected GLR is steeper than the ones representing the lower injected GLR. but should nevertheless show an efficiency trend for the Gas Lift system. showing the tubing performance curves for different values of injected GLR. casing pressure.

6. June 2007 For Case C: As the Gas Lift concept is based on lightening the fluid column. Calculations with a lower wellhead pressure were conducted also for Case C. there is obviously a lower limit for the reservoir pressure where gas lift is no longer feasible as an artificial lift method. but the efficiency rapidly decrease as the reservoir pressure is falling faster than the required production flow rate for each well (Figure 11). For Case B. Calculations are found as Appendix B.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. The calculations for the modified Case C show an overall Gas Lift efficiency of 9.3. Gas Lift gives a very high overall efficiency at the beginning of the 10 year period. Gas Lift is not feasible for Case C.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). but should nevertheless show an efficiency trend for the Gas Lift system. independent of the injected GLR. it is shown that the Gas lifted well will not produce for Case C. Maximum flow rate attainable is about 1600 Sm3/d. Hence. Hence. the tubing performance curves on the plot represent assumed optimal configurations of tubing and maximum gas injection depth. For Case C. reservoir pressure is set to 70 bar and wellhead backpressure fixed at 30 bar. the total static pressure gradient for the fluid column must be less than 40 bar.7% for the given conditions. if disregarding the friction pressure drop. the production demand of 3750 Sm3/d could not be reached. reservoir pressure 70 bara). at an unreasonably high injected GLR of 1000. As for Case B. which corresponds to an average liquid density of about 150 kg/m3. 36 .4 Evaluation of results As the above calculations show. 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). Referring to Figure 37 (lower inflow line.

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

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

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

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

as the total pressure gain over the pump will enhance. Another factor that influences the performance of the ESP is the pump operating frequency. Changes in the wellhead back pressure will also be of less consequence for the ESP performance compared to the Gas Lift. June 2007 7. 7. the above mentioned factors and several others. as long as the pump physically fits in the tubing. where the curve for the pump discharge pressure is quite steep compared to the IPR curve for the Gas Lift seen in. Number of pump stages will affect the pump performance significantly. 41 . This is seen in Figure 47. just like other methods of artificial lift. The procedure varies considerable with well conditions or fluids to be pumped. This is illustrated in Figure 49.1 Main factors to control pump performance As for the other artificial lift methods. have to be taken into consideration when sizing the ESP system. To optimise pump performance. Figure 27.2 ESP performance 7. while other factors have little or no influence on the pump performance. As illustrated in Figure 48. Collection of good data covering these conditions prior to sizing a submersible installation is essential to proper sizing. the production flow rate will increase considerably with increasing number of stages.2. is not an exact science and involves a number of factors. production history and reservoir conditions are very important.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.2. the tubing size has little influence on ESP performance. where the production flow rate increases with increase in the operating frequency. As opposed to Gas Lift. Detailed information on well completion.2 ESP sizing The sizing of a submersible pumping installation. The operating frequency is proportional to the pump impellers RPM. for instance. there are some main factors which affect the ESP performance significantly.

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

6% for Case A to 43. it seems like the hydraulic efficiency is a few percent higher than the overall efficiency.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. Keeping this in mind. By using the same ESP input values in PROSPER as calculated here. as it was not possible to gather information about a few specific parts. Figure 57 and Figure 58. the accuracy of these assumptions must be taken into consideration when evaluating the efficiency and power-requirement results. except for Case A.2 (Figure 1). As seen in Figure 56. Also.5% for Case A to 25. For Gas Lift.2% for Case B and C respectively. 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.3 are surprisingly similar. Figure 56 shows one ESP lifted well flowing at 5000 Sm3/d. PROSPER provides ESP options with pump characteristics very close to the pumps chosen in this thesis. they seem reasonable. the results from the PROSPER calculations and the manual calculations in Chapter 7. performance curves with flow rates for the three cases were generated. This is further explained below the calculations for Case A. June 2007 7. as indicated in the Jet Pump calculations and in Chapter 5. 45 . They all fall into the expected efficiency range. However. where the pump chosen is not optimal for the Case. varying from 37. As earlier emphasized. while for Case B and C. 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. the overall efficiency for Case A was 66%.4. ESP is the artificial lift system with the highest overall efficiency for the three Cases.9% and 24.7% for Case B and C. efficiency was not attainable. which is used for the ESP calculations. Plots of overall efficiency and power requirement for the three Artificial Lift systems are presented as Figure 59 and Figure 60.4 Evaluation of results Comparing the above results with the typical ESP hydraulic efficiencies presented in Chapter 2. As illustrated in Figure 59. the calculation results for ESP are considered to be reasonable. Jet Pump has reported overall efficiencies on 30.

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

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

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 ESP overall efficiency has been assumed linearly increasing from year 0 to year 5. a well intervention will cost about 20 million NOK per well. 9.1 million NOK per well per year. as well as an overview of the discounted production costs per year.2 Opex estimates using Gas Lift As shown earlier in the thesis. The Table contains NPV Opex. June 2007 NPV Opex for the Jet Pump solution were calculated to be about 948 million NOK (Table 25). For the ESP solution. which is about 9. this is not a technically feasible Artificial Lift solution for the depressurization process. The Opex calculations for both Jet Pump and ESP are plotted together with the belonging artificial lift efficiencies in Figure 63.3 Opex estimates using ESP One of the largest uncertainties regarding the operational expenses for ESP is the lifetime of the pumps. The excel spreadsheet for the ESP Opex calculations is found as Table 26. Economical estimations for Gas Lift will therefore not be conducted. or an average of 13.7% from year 5-10. The well intervention frequency is based on an ESP lifetime of 18 months. as well as an overview of the discounted production costs per year. the NPV Opex is about 1311 million NOK.5 million NOK per well per year. 9. Pump discharge pressure is assumed linearly decreasing from 300 bara in year 0 to 285 bara in year 10.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. B and C calculations from Chapter 5 and 7. As a retrieval of the ESP pump requires a full well intervention and pulling of the tubing. and steady at 43. One should be aware of that overall efficiency reported in this plot is the expected overall efficiency trend based on Case A. The overall efficiency for the whole depressurization period is 51 . the pump lifetime is vital to the economical estimates for the Artificial Lift method. According to available information from the operator.

1 billion NOK. where the Capex and Opex values for each year are reported. It is referred to Figure 66 for the total discounted costs for the 10 year project. its accuracy can be discussed. The total time distributed costs for the ESP and Jet Pump can be found in Figure 64 and Figure 65. the Jet Pump should be selected as the artificial water-lift system on Statfjord. For the Jet Pump the price is estimated to 1. Hence.1 billion NOK. dominated by well intervention costs. even though the Jet Pump is significantly less energy efficient. Figure 63 illustrates average overall artificial lift efficiency vs. is considerably higher than the Jet Pump Opex. The Figure shows that the ESP Opex. from a financial point of view. Opex for ESP and Jet Pump. Figure 62 shows the Opex distribution for ESP. and although it gives a good indication for the efficiencytrend. Using ESP.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. Due to the high frequency well interventions and pump replacement. June 2007 interpolated between three points. The Figure illustrates the costs distribution both as percentage shares of total ESP Opex and as shares of total ESP Opex in million NOK. respectively. where the dominance of well intervention costs is evident. ESP is a very expensive alternative. 52 . The Figures plot total costs versus time. the total discounted costs for 10 years estimates to about 2.

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

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

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

the ESP is also proved to be a very expensive alternative in regards to Capex. middle and late stage. the power requirements for Jet Pumping are 1. NPV Opex for ESP is estimated to about 1300 million NOK. independent of the injected gas volume. respectively. This is mainly due to the short expected ESP lifetime. Conclusion ESP.8 MW for 10 wells in the late phase.4 MW and 14. middle and late project phase.9 MW for 10 wells at an early. Gas Lift and Jet Pump are evaluated as petroleum production techniques for water lift. Despite the fact that it is proven the most energy efficient lift system. the most energy efficient artificial lift alternative. ESP is estimated to be. respectively. each case representing the depressurization phase at an early.1 MW for one well. by far. while Jet Pump NPV Opex is estimated to about 950 million NOK. This is mainly due to the high number of required costly well interventions. Gas Lift is found to be an unsuitable artificial lift method for pumping of deep water at low reservoir pressures. preventing the Gas lifted wells to produce the required water flow rates. For comparison. Calculation results show that ESP has the highest overall efficiency for the larger part of the depressurization period. 40 MW for 10 wells in the middle phase and 31. water is too dense and the friction pressure loss in the production tubing.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. the reservoir pressure is estimated to decline very fast in the early phase of the depressurization project. Jet Pump overall efficiency ranges from 31% to 26% and 24% for the early. to 20. for three different cases. middle and late stage. June 2007 11. Although this lift method achieves a very high overall power efficiency. ranging from 38% at an early stage to 44% at a middle and late stage. which is a consequence of short expected lifetime of the ESPs. Calculations for the assumed optimal design are carried out for all three artificial lift methods. 66%. Compared to the Jet Pump. too high. caused by a high volume of injected gas. ESP Opex is calculated to be considerably higher than Opex for the Jet Pump. The required topside electrical power input ranges from 1.8 MW for one well in the early phase. resulting in a high 56 . for one well producing at a relatively high reservoir pressure. For this.

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

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

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

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.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.Qi Water Cut .2667 0.00135 7100 250 60 .T Flowing bottomhole pressure.Pi Wellhead back pressure.245 92 23000000 3000000 0.Pwh Desired flowrate.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 0.043402778 0.05787037 0.Qi Water Cut .995 20 843 10300 0.D Casing OD Casing ID.D Casing OD Casing ID.Pwh Desired flowrate.Pi Wellhead back pressure.d1 Bottomhole temperature. June 2007 Tables Table 1: Well data for Case A (Statoil ASA) Input Data Pump Setting depth.d1 Bottomhole temperature.00135 7100 250 Table 2: Well data for Case B (Statoil ASA) Input Data Pump Setting depth.995 20 843 10300 0.T Flowing bottomhole pressure.2667 0.245 92 8500000 3000000 0.

T Flowing bottomhole pressure. This is calculated by PROSPER.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Table 3: Well data for Case C (Statoil ASA) Input Data Pump Setting depth.995 20 843 10300 0. Chapter 5.245 92 6000000 3000000 0. June 2007 Table 4: Data table for the return annular liquid flow. setting the return conduit to “casing-tubing annulus”.d1 Bottomhole temperature.Pi Wellhead back pressure.D Casing OD Casing ID. Highlighted are the return liquid flow rate (step 11. 61 .028935185 0.3) and the corresponding friction pressure loss.2667 0.00135 7100 250 NTNU.Pwh Desired flowrate.Qi Water Cut .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. Case A.

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

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 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

0 2013 10 8 120 100.6 Table 23: CAPEX Estimate – ESP.27 11.3 2015 10 6 90 67.00 2013 10 4 20.30 6.5 2019 10 8 120 71.4 792.84 11.17 144.8 2014 10 6 90 71.79 15.10 13.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Table 21: Data Chart for Figure ESP Case C NTNU. MMNOK Discounted investment costs. June 2007 Table 22: CAPEX Estimate – Jet Pump.Brent Group (Statfjord Field) Year Total # wells at end of year # New Pumps Total pump equipment price. CAPEX Estimate for Jet Pump Solution .0 2020 10 1 15 8.00 18.3 2016 10 8 120 84.47 14.0 2011 8 6 110 103. MMNOK 2010 4 4 20.90 16.87 8.6 2017 10 6 90 59. MMNOK Discounted investment costs.8 2012 10 6 100 89.Brent Group (Statfjord Field) Year Total # wells at end of year # New Pumps Total pump equipment price.00 2018 10 2 10. MMNOK Total discounted investment costs.4 74 .00 2012 10 2 10.00 20. CAPEX Estimate for ESP Solution .00 2011 8 4 20.10 years.9 2018 10 6 90 56. MMNOK Total discounted investment costs.84 7.00 2014 10 4 20.00 2017 10 4 20.00 2020 10 4 20.10 years.00 2016 10 4 20.00 2019 10 4 20. MMNOK 2010 4 4 80 80.00 2015 10 2 10.

6 28. bara Average flowing bottomhole pressure.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 30.9 24.5 37224.5 228 223 12190 2011 6. Sm^3/d Average expected Artificial Lift efficiency.84 NOK/litre Spec. fuel gas cost 0.0121 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 399799.7 2.6 3722. bara Average total production.5 24. CO2 cost 0. availability ok Table 25: OPEX Estimate – Jet Pump OPEX Estimate for Jet Pump Solution . MMNOK Discounted total production costs / year.84 NOK/Sm3 Spec.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Table 24: Production cost of electrical power at Statfjord (Statoil ASA).5 2800 65904.412 83630. MMNOK Total production costs / year.Brent Group (Statfjord Field) Year Average # wells through year Average Reservoir pressure.7456 kg/m3 Gassens brennverdi 47940 kJ/kg Turbinens heat rate 9900 kJ/kW*hr NOx factor DLE 0.5 170 158 30206 2012 9.5 0 0 37224.499 0. 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. kW Average power costs / year. CO2 cost 0.10 years.6 160000 88748936. MMNOK Estimated well intervention costs / year.6 21448. Production cost of electrical power : NOK/kW DLE SAC kNOK/Year kNOK/Year 22157.686 m3CO2/Sm3 Fuel gas consumtion@20 MW 1. Nox cost 40 NOK/kg CO2 faktor 2.7 27.5 29.4 % Spare engine available.7 26. kW Total input effect = Total useful effect / efficiency. bara △ Total useful effect = Q_production × P.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.2 24.6 25. cost (NOK/kWh) 22157.5 2800 NTNU.434 0.5 NOK/Sm3 Spec.17 555 69386.523 Assumptions Spec. % Average expected pump discharge pressure.8 25. MMNOK 2010 2. Diesel cost 4 NOK/litre Spec. 948 75 .0021 kgNOx/Sm3 NOx factor SAC 0.147 kg/s Fuel gas density 0.9 25.7 0.

3 94 40000 42. MMNOK Total production costs / year.10 years. MMNOK # Well interventions / year Estimated well intervention costs / year. bara Average total production. bara △ Total useful effect = Q_production × P.0 103 42500 41.8 118 42478 40. MMNOK Discounted total production costs / year. % Average expected pump discharge pressure.5 170 2012 9.7 64 27500 43. 1311 76 .7 72 32500 43. kW Average power costs / year.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. bara Average flowing bottomhole pressure.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.6 158 30206 38.7 60 25000 43.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. Sm^3/d Average expected Artificial Lift efficiency.5 228 2011 6. June 2007 Table 26: OPEX Estimate – ESP OPEX Estimate for ESP Solution .7 68 30000 43.5 85 37500 43.Brent Group (Statfjord Field) Year Average # wells through year Average Reservoir pressure. kW Total input effect = Total useful effect / efficiency. MMNOK 2010 2.7 76 35000 43.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

00 1=100.00 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=250.48 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. (PROSPER generated) 86 .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves .00 3=200.Water Producer on Natural Lift 320 4 3 2 1 0 NTNU.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 0.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100. June 2007 Variables 1:Reservoir Pressure (BARa) 1 2 0=70.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.00 2=150.0 (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.000 (percent) Com pletion Cased Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.95 0.

00 1=200 .084 At 0.0 (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 . (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 .No zzle (1 5) Throat (3 ) An 0. PDP = Pump Discharge Pressure.No zzle (1 5) Throat (3 ) An 0.0 (d eg C) Fie ld Statfjord JET Pum p Te s t .322 R 0.00 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 0.0 (m ) Grave l Pa ck No Well Type Pro ducer Bottom True Vertical Depth27 48. PDP = Pump Discharge Pressure.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.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 .0 (m ) Grave l Pa ck No Well Type Pro ducer Bottom True Vertical Depth27 48.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 0.0 (d eg C) Fie ld Statfjord JET Pum p Te s t .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 48.00 (BARa ) Inflow Type Single Bran ch Flu id Oil Water Cu t 0.0 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 .00 4=800 .0 2=200 0.322 R 0. June 2007 Va riab les 3:Jet Pum p Inje ction Rate (Sm 3/da y) 1 2 3 0=500 .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 0.2 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. (PROSPER generated) 87 .0 1=100 0.00 3=600 .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 .00 2=400 .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 .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves 60 0 IPR Curve VL P Curve PDP NTNU.

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

C.084 At 0. PDP = Pump Discharge Pressure.262 Well Eks em pel Analys t BFS Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Figure 18: Jet Pump performance curves.000 (percent) Com pletion Cas ed Hole Flow Type Annular Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100. 1989) Inflow v Outflow Curves . F. Cavitation occurs where the throat pressure is drawn below the produced fluids vapour pressure (Christ.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 .0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Inters ection Dis Allow Res ervoir Tem perature 92.Nozzle (15) Throat (3) An 0.L.322 R 0.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. June 2007 Figure 17: Pressure history of produced fluid as it enters and travels through the jet pump.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. (PROSPER generated) 89 .0 (deg C) Field Statfjord JET Pum p Tes t . H.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. Petrie.

Nozzle (15) Throat (3) An 0.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 0.1 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 30.000 (percent) Com pletion Cased Hole Flow Type Annular Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord JET Pum p Test .084 At 0. June 2007 Inflow v Outflow Curves .0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748. PDP = Pump Discharge Pressure.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.(PROSPER generated) 90 .0 (m ) Gas Coning No Artificial Lift Jet Pum p Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill Reservoir Model PI Entry Lift Type Tubing Injection .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.262 Well Eksem pel Analyst BFS Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Figure 19: Jet Pump performance curves.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Intersection Dis Allow Reservoir Tem perature 92.

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 92.0 (m ) Gas Coning No Artificial Lift Jet Pum p Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill Reservoir Model PI Entry Lift Type Tubing Injection .1 well flowing @ 2500 Sm^3/d 400 IPR Curve VLP Curve PDP NTNU.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves .210 Well Eksem pel Analyst BFS Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Figure 20: Jet Pump performance curves.(PROSPER generated) 91 .00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.Nozzle (17) Throat (4) An 0.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 0.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord JET Pum p Test .628 R 0. PDP = Pump Discharge Pressure.000 (percent) Com pletion Cased Hole Flow Type Annular Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.

00 4000. [%] 20.0 Nozzle 17 Nozzle 18 Nozzle 19 15.0 30.0 Nozzle 20 10. Power Requirement. 92 .00 Power.0 Nozzle 16 Hydraulic Efficiency. [HP] 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 Figure 21: Nozzle/Throat selection for Case A. [HP] 8000. Power Requirement 35.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.00 12000. Hydraulic Efficiency vs.0 16E 25. [%] Nozzle 18 20 Nozzle 19 Nozzle 20 15 10 5 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Power. Case A 40 35 16E 30 25 Nozzle 16 Nozzle 17 Hydraulic Efficiency.00 10000.00 2000. June 2007 Hydraulic Efficiency vs.00 6000.0 0.0 5.0 0.00 Figure 22: Nozzle/Throat selection for Case B.

00 Power.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.00 4000.0 Nozzle 17 Nozzle 18 15. [HP] 8000.0 0.00 Figure 23: Nozzle/Throat selection for Case C.0 Nozzle 19 Nozzle 20 10.00 6000.0 5.0 30.0 0. [%] 20. power requirement 35.00 12000.00 10000.00 2000. June 2007 Hydraulic Efficiency vs.0 Nozzle 16 Hydraulic Efficiency.0 19B 25. 93 .00 14000.

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

95 0.0 (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 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. (PROSPER generated) 95 . June 2007 Variables 1:Reservoir Pressure (BARa) 1 2 0=200.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.00 1=225.000 (percent) Com pletion Cased Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Intersection Dis Allow Reservoir Tem perature 92.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves 320 NTNU.00 2=250.48 Perm eability No Relative Predicting Pressure and Tem perature (offshore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Reservoir Pres sure 250.

00 1=4.95 0.0 (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 .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. June 2007 Variables 3:Tubing/Pipe Diameter (inches ) 1 2 1 3 0=2.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Intersection Dis Allow Reservoir Tem perature 92.0 (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.000 (percent) Com pletion Cased Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.00 2=6.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.48 Perm eability No Relative Predicting Pressure and Tem perature (offshore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Reservoir Pres sure 250.00 3=8.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves 400 NTNU.

0 (m ) Com pletion Cas ed Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves 320 NTNU.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 250.00 5=30.000 (percent) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.0 (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 0.00 1=10.00 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. June 2007 Variables 1:Firs t Node Pres s ure (BARa) 1 2 0=5. 97 .95 0.00 2=15.00 4=25.00 3=20.0 (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. (PROSPER generated) Figure 28: Example of a Gas Lift performance curve.

the pressure valve (IPO).valve-world.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.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 92.0 (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 0.00 240 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.net) 98 .000 (percent) Com pletion Cased Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.00 1=100.95 0. to the right the Fluid Valve (PPO).0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves 320 NTNU. June 2007 Variables 3:Casing Pressure (BARa) 1 2 1 0 3 0=50. (PROSPER generated) Figure 30: Two different valve-concepts.00 3=200. To the left.00 2=150. (www.

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

0 (Sm3/Sm3) ACTUAL Liqui d Rate5000.000 (1000Sm3/d) 2 Fl owi ng Top Node Pressure 30.00 (percent) Safety For Closure Of Last Unloadi ng Val ve 2.00 (BARa) Ki ck-Off Inj ecti on Pressure180. based on input parameters presented in Table 12 (IPO Valves).0 (deg C) Figure 33: Gas lift design for Case A.0 (m) Water Cut 100.103 (bar/m) Mi nimum Transfer dP 25.4.2 (m) Static Gradi ent Of Load Fl uid 0.00 (BARa) Desi red dP Across Valve 1.447 (bar) Desi gn Rate Method Entered By User Desi gn Li qui d Rate5000.000 (bar) Maximum Depth Of Inj ecti on2748.00 (BARa) Operati ng Injection Pressure180.052 (1000Sm3/d) 1 ACTUAL Inj ecti on Pressure171.48 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. 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 3.5 (Sm3/day) ACTUAL Oil Rate 0 (Sm3/day) ACTUAL Gas Injection Rate 96. Chapter 6. (PROSPER generated) 100 .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Temperature (deg C) NTNU.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 0.00 (BARa) Reservoi r Temperature 92.00 (BARa) Unl oading Top Node Pressure 30.000 (1000Sm3/d) 2 Maximum Gas Duri ng Unl oading00.95 0.11 (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 250.000 (bar) Total GOR 20.000 (percent) Mi nimum Spaci ng 76.

103 (bar/m) Minimum Transfer dP 25.760 (1000Sm3/d) 1 ACTUAL Injection Pressure180.00 (BARa) Desired dP Across Valve 1.5 (Sm3/day) ACTUAL Oil Rate 0 (Sm3/day) ACTUAL Gas Injection Rate 88. Chapter 6.00 (percent) Safety For Closure Of Last Unloading Valve 2.000 (1000Sm3/d) 2 Flowing Top Node Pressure 30.000 (1000Sm3/d) 2 Maximum Gas During Unloading00.00 (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 250.0 (Sm3/Sm3) ACTUAL Liquid Rate5000.000 (percent) Minimum Spacing 76.5 (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. based on input parameters presented in Table 13 (PPO Valves).00 (BARa) Unloading Top Node Pressure 30.00 (BARa) Kick-Off Injection Pressure180.0 (m) Water Cut 100.95 0.0 (deg C) Figure 34: Gas lift design for Case A. June 2007 0 0 30 60 90 120 GASLIFT DESIGN (NEW WELL) REPORT Valve Type Tubing Sensitive Percent Pcasing-Pwh 30.00 (BARa) Operating Injection Pressure180.2 (m) Static Gradient Of Load Fluid 0.000 (bar) Maximum Depth Of Injection2748.4. (HYSYS generated) 101 .000 (bar) Total GOR 20. (PROSPER generated) Figure 35: Flow chart for the lift-gas compression process.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) Reservoir Temperature 92.00 (percent) Design Rate Method Entered By User Design Liquid Rate5000.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Temperature (deg C) (Eksempel 08 May 07 13:15) 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 0.95 0. 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 30.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100. (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 250.1 well flowing @ 5000 Sm^3/d 320 NTNU.000 (percent) Com pletion Cased Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves .00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Intersection Dis Allow Reservoir Tem perature 92.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord Well Eksem pel Analyst BFS Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Figure 36: Gas Lift performance curves for Case A.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.

E= Erosional Velocity Limit Exceeded (high dP friction for the marked flowrates).0 1=100. (PROSPER generated).0 3=300.0 (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.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Intersection Dis Allow Reservoir Tem perature 92.000 (percent) Com pletion Cased Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.0 6=600.48 Perm eability No Relative Predicting Pressure and Tem perature (offshore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Reservoir Pres sure 70.Case B & C 320 NTNU.00 1=100.0 2=200.95 0.0 5=500.0 (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. 103 .00 0=50.0 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 30.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.0 7=1000. 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.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves .0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.0 4=400. Case B and C (Reservoir pressure at 100 and 70 bara).

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 0.48 Res e rvoir Mo del PI Entry 1 Xma s Tree 0 (m ) Relative Perm eab ility No 3 Tubing 274 8.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Gas Lift Performance Curve 28 00 NTNU.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 5.0 (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 0.000 (percent) Com pletion Cas ed Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.0 ) (m Res e rvoir Pres s ure 0.95 0.2.48 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. 104 .00 (BARa ) 10 Res e rvoir Tem pe ra tu re 92 .0 (d eg C) Figure 38: Gas Lift Performance Chart for Appendix B.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.0 (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.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.0 (m ) 27 48. 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 48.2 (PROSPER generated).00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Inters ection Dis Allow Res ervoir Tem perature 92.95 0. (PROSPER generated) Inflow v Outflow Curves .

(PROSPER generated) Figure 41: Flow chart for the lift-gas compression process.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. Appendix B.0 (deg C) Figure 40: Gas lift design for Appendix B.00 (percent) Safety For Closure Of Last Unloadi ng Val ve 2.205 (1000Sm3/d) ACTUAL Inj ecti on Pressure 130.00 (BARa) Operati ng Injection Pressure 130.000 (1000Sm3/d) Maximum Gas Duri ng Unl oading 1200. June 2007 0 0 30 60 90 120 GASLIFT DESIGN (NEW WELL) REPORT Val ve Type Tubing Sensitive Percent Pcasi ng-Pwh 30.3 (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 0.00 (BARa) Desi red dP Across Valve 1.2.00 (BARa) Ki ck-Off Inj ecti on Pressure 130.00 (percent) Desi gn Rate Method Entered By User Desi gn Li qui d Rate 2645.000 (bar) Total GOR 20.000 (bar) Maximum Depth Of Inj ecti on 2748.000 (percent) 1 Mi nimum Spaci ng 76.0 (m) Water Cut 00.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Temperature (deg C) (Eksempel 29 May 07 12:23) NTNU.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 2645.00 (BARa) Reservoi r Temperature 92.103 (bar/m) Mi nimum Transfer dP 25. (HYSYS generated) 105 .2 (m) Static Gradi ent Of Load Fl uid 0.3 (Sm3/day) ACTUAL Oil Rate 0 (Sm3/day) ACTUAL Gas Injection Rate848.00 (BARa) Unl oading Top Node Pressure 5.000 (1000Sm3/d) Fl owi ng Top Node Pressure 5.2.95 0. based on input parameters presented in Table 17 (PPO Valves).

00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.00 (BARa) Reservoir Tem perature 92.0 (m ) Com pletion Cased Hole 2748.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.3.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Beggs and Brill Gas Coning No Beggs and Brill 0.3 (PROSPER generated).000 (percent) Com pletion Cased Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord Well Eksem pel Analyst BFS Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Figure 43: Inflow/outflow curves for Appendix B.95 0.0 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) Figure 42: Gas Lift Performance Chart for Appendix B.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.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Gas Lift Performance Plot 1540 NTNU.48 Reservoir Model PI Entry 1 Xmas Tree 0 ) (m Relative Perm eability No 3 Tubing 2748.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 92.48 Perm eability No Relative Predicting Pressure and Tem perature (offshore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Reservoir Pres sure 70. (PROSPER generated) Inflow v Outflow Curves . 106 .95 0. 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 Reservoir Pres sure 70.

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 0.3.716 (1000Sm3/d) 7 ACTUAL Injection Pressure110.000 (1000Sm3/d) 9 Maximum Gas During Unloading00.0 (Sm3/Sm3) ACTUAL Liquid Rate1539.48 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 00.000 (bar) Total GOR 20.0 (deg C) Figure 44: Gas lift design for Appendix B.000 (percent) Minimum Spacing 76. (HYSYS generated) 107 .00 (BARa) Kick-Off Injection Pressure110. based on input parameters presented in Table 18 (PPO Valves).2 (Sm3/day) ACTUAL Oil Rate 0 (Sm3/day) ACTUAL Gas Injection Rate 36.000 (1000Sm3/d) 9 Flowing Top Node Pressure 5.000 (bar) Maximum Depth Of Injection2748.00 (BARa) Reservoir Temperature 92. (PROSPER generated) Figure 45: Flow chart for the lift-gas compression process.00 (BARa) Desired dP Across Valve 1.95 0. June 2007 0 0 30 60 90 120 GASLIFT DESIGN (NEW WELL) REPORT Valve Type Tubing Sensitive Percent Pcasing-Pwh 30.103 (bar/m) Minimum Transfer dP 25.3.00 (BARa) Unloading Top Node Pressure 5.00 (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 70.0 (m) Water Cut 100.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Temperature (deg C) NTNU.2 (m) Static Gradient Of Load Fluid 0.00 (percent) Design Rate Method Entered By User Design Liquid Rate1539.00 (percent) Safety For Closure Of Last Unloading Valve 2.00 (BARa) Operating Injection Pressure110. Appendix B.

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

00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.00 0 (p erce nt) 10 Inflow Type Single Bran ch Flu id Oil Bottom Meas ure d De pth27 48.0 (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 0.000 (percent) Com pletion Cas ed Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Inters ection Dis Allow Res ervoir Tem perature 92.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.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 0.95 0.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves 40 0 IPR Curve VL P Curve PDP NTNU.00 (BARa ) 25 Com pan y Statoil Res e rvoir Tem pe ra tu re 92 .0 (deg C) Field Statfjord ESP Pum p ESP .0 (d eg C) ESP Pum p ESP . June 2007 Va riab les 1:Firs t No de Pres s ure (BARa) 1 2 0=5.00 1=10.48 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 0 2=15.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. (PROSPER generated).95 0.00 3=80.00 1=40.00 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 0 5=30.0 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 0 4=25. (PROSPER generated) 109 .00 2=60.0 0 3=20.48 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 (m ) Com pletion Cas e d Ho le Flo w Typ e Tu bing Bottom True Vertical Depth27 48.

June 2007 Variables 1:Operating Frequency (Hertz) 1 2 0=30.000 (percent) Com pletion Cas ed Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.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.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Inters ection Dis Allow Res ervoir Tem perature 92.00 3=60.00 1=40.48 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.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves 490 IPR Curve VLP Curve PDP NTNU.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 3 420 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. (PROSPER generated) 110 .95 0.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.00 2=50.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord ESP Pum p ESP .

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

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

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

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

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

1 well flowing @ 5000 Sm^3/d 400 IPR Curve VLP Curve PDP NTNU. 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. PDP = Pump Discharge Pressure.performance curves.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Intersection Dis Allow Reservoir Tem perature 92.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord ESP Pum p ESP .00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.(PROSPER generated) 116 .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves .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.TN1050C Well Eksem pel ESP Motor Analyst BFS ESP Cable #1 Copper Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Figure 56: ESP .95 0.48 Perm eability No Relative Predicting Pressure and Tem perature (offshore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Reservoir Pres sure 250.

0 (deg C) Field Statfjord ESP Pum p CENTRILIFT .00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.IA600 Well Eksem pel ESP Motor Analyst BFS ESP Cable #1 Copper Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Figure 57: ESP .00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Intersection Dis Allow Reservoir Tem perature 92. PDP = Pump Discharge Pressure.48 Perm eability No Relative Predicting Pressure and Tem perature (offshore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Reservoir Pres sure 100.1 well flowing @ 3750 Sm^3/d 800 IPR Curve VLP Curve PDP NTNU.(PROSPER generated) 117 .95 0.000 (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.performance curves. 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.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves .

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.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves .performance curves. for ESP.HC19000 Well Eksem pel ESP Motor Analyst BFS ESP Cable #1 Copper Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Figure 58: ESP .1 well flowing @ 2500 Sm^3/d 440 IPR Curve VLP Curve PDP NTNU.48 Perm eability No Relative Predicting Pressure and Tem perature (offshore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Reservoir Pres sure 70. PDP = Pump Discharge Pressure.000 (percent) Com pletion Cased Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord ESP Pum p CENTRILIFT .(PROSPER generated) Figure 59: Artificial Lift efficiency based on Case A. 118 .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 0.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Intersection Dis Allow Reservoir Tem perature 92. B and C.95 0.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748. GL and Jet Pump.

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 2007 125 .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.

June 2007 126 .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.

4 Following are the Jet Pump calculations for Case B. The results are further discussed in Chapter 5. June 2007 These results seem reasonable for Case A. Well data for Case B are enclosed as Table 2.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. The calculations are conducted for 1 well and multiplied by 10 at the end. to get the total power demand for all 10 wells. 127 .

June 2007 128 .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. June 2007 129 .

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

June 2007 131 .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. June 2007 132 .

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. June 2007 133 .

at the given inlet pressure and temperature. June 2007 Appendix B. Table 14 and 15 contains values for the PPO and IPOoptions. year 2009). where the inlet pressure for the topside liftgas compressor is equal to the flowing wellhead pressure (30 bara).4 134 . where (18) Adiabatic compression work. For the PPO-option we have: Z(@30bar/20°C) = 0. Case A Calculations for compressor effect.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. To reduce required compressor effect.8722 k = 1. 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. respectively. equation (9): Inserting equation 18 into equation 9 yields: (19) The gas lift system is considered a closed system. Case A: From the real gas law we have: .1 – Gas Lift calculations. the gas-stream is run through a cooler before reaching the compressor.

The HYSYS-flow chart for the process is shown as Figure 35. we get: Hence.3. the IPO-option is chosen for further calculations. even though the above calculations show very little deviation in compressor power-demand for the two options.5 kW. The results show that the manual calculations presented here are fairly accurate. we get the compression effect by using equation (10): Inserting an assumed compressor-efficiency on 85%.8722 k = 1.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. we get: For the IPO-option we have: Z(@30bar/20°C) = 0. HYSYS calculations for the IPO-alternative gave a compressor effect on 531. 135 . June 2007 Based on the adiabatic compression work. The HYSYS compressor-effect value is used for further calculations in Chapter 6.4 Inserting an assumed compressor-efficiency on 85%.

The maximum casing pressure is 130 bar. Figure 41 shows the separation and compression process. it is referred to Chapter 6. The gas composition from year 2015 (Table 11) was used for the compressor-effect calculations.3. it is seen that the injected GLR (IGLR) representing the highest production flow rate is about 317. shown in Figure 37. using PPO-valves which were found best suited for this Case.3. HYSYS was used. Figure 40 shows a suggested Gas Lift tubing design. Case B Below follows a brief estimate of the gas lift efficiency when reducing the wellhead pressure for Case B to 5 bara. Figure 39 shows the inflow/outflow –curves for the IGLR representing the highest water production (Figure 38). To calculate the compressor effect. Tubing dimensions are the same as used in Case A. A Gas Lift performance plot for the modified Case B is shown in Figure 38. In comparison with Case B. Table 17 contains the input data for Figure 39. the data used in the below calculations differ in wellhead backpressure and the producing volume flow rate.1 and 6. Using an adiabatic compression efficiency of 85%.5 Sm3/d using an IGLR of 317 Sm3/ Sm3 (849 MSm3/d injected gas. For review and demonstration of the manual calculation method. HYSYS calculated the effect required to compress 849 MSm3/d from 5 to 130 bar (Figure 41) to be 5215 kW. where the gas stream is compressed from 5 to 130 bar.1 as: 136 . Case A: Useful and added effect for gas lift is defined in Chapter 6. This corresponds to a water production of about 2645 Sm3/d. Table 17).Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. The well produces at 2645.2 – Gas Lift calculations. The overall efficiency of the Gas Lift is calculated as in Chapter 6. June 2007 Appendix B. Referring to Figure 38. PROSPER is used to calculate tubing intake curves for different injected GLR values.

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. using PPO-valves which were found best suited for this Case. The static fluid pressure at the perforations without gas lift is 265 bar (no flow). 137 . This corresponds to a water production of about 1539 Sm3/d. Figure 43 shows the inflow/outflow –curves for the IGLR representing the highest water production (Figure 42). This gives a delta P equal to 200 bar. Tubing dimensions are the same as used in Case A. 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. The well produces at 1539 Sm3/d using an IGLR of 500 Sm3/ Sm3 (736 MSm3/d injected gas. Hence. Figure 44 shows a suggested Gas Lift tubing design. The maximum casing pressure is 110 bar. Table 18 contains the input data for Figure 43. A Gas Lift performance plot for the modified Case C is shown in Figure 42. Referring to Figure 42. Production is 2645 Sm3/d (Table 17). Total Gas Lift efficiency for this case: Appendix B. it is seen that the injected GLR (IGLR) representing the highest production flow rate is about 500. In comparison with Case C.3 – Gas Lift calculations. the data used in the below calculations differ in wellhead backpressure and the producing volume flow rate. Table 18). while the flowing gradient is about 65 bar with gas lift (Highlighted in Table 17). shown in Figure 37. PROSPER is used to calculate tubing intake curves for different injected GLR values. Case C Below follows a brief estimate of the gas lift efficiency when reducing the wellhead pressure for Case C to 5 bara.

Hence. it is referred to Chapter 6. while the flowing gradient is about 44. This gives a delta P equal to 220 bar.4 bar with gas lift (Highlighted in Table 18).3. The gas composition from year 2020 (Table 11) was used for the compressor-effect calculations. Using an adiabatic compression efficiency of 85%.3. For review and demonstration of the manual calculation method. June 2007 To calculate the compressor effect. The overall efficiency of the Gas Lift is calculated as in Chapter 6. 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. The static fluid pressure at the perforations without gas lift is 265 bar (no flow).1 and 6. Total Gas Lift efficiency for this case: 138 . HYSYS was used. Production is 1539 Sm3/d (Table 18). Case A: Useful and added effect for gas lift is defined in Chapter 6.1 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.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. Figure 45 shows the separation and compression process.

00135 7100 250 25000000 1 230 bar 30 bar 5000 Sm3/d 0.6 bar 200. For the given production volume.d1 Tubing OD.2 m g H wh Pfriction g Pwh g fluid 5000 Sm^3/d equals 31446.1397 0.05787037 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. it is referred to the Baker Hughes website.Basic data Input Data Pump Setting depth.127 2748 92 23000000 3000000 0.Pwh Desired flowrate.124 0.d2 Tubing Id.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.7 m (deltaPfriction retrieved from PROSPER) Pfriction Pwh fluid fluid g Ft Ft H wh 3396 ft fluid H wh 362.9 m 139 .Production capacity For the Inflow Performance Curve for Case A.103 bar/m 0.Gas calculations As the producing volume of oil is very low compared to the water production.d5 Tubing coupling OD.and the GOR is as low as 20. 18.2667 0. the producing gas is neglected in these calculations STEP 4 .Qi Water Cut .7 m H tubingleng th Hfluidlevel g H fluidlevel fluid Pwf Hfluidlevel Pwf fluid g Pfriction Ft Head required to exceed wellhead pressure.Pump type Selecting the type of Pump The predetermined production volume of 16.995 20 843 1030 10300 0. June 2007 Appendix C – ESP Calculations Case A: Calculations for sizing the ESP Pump STEP 1 .d4 Length of tubing Bottomhole temperature.071 bar/m 250 bar Hd Ft Hwh Hd Hd 471.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.T Flowing bottomhole pressure.Wc Gas-oil ratio Oil gravity Water gravity Water gradient Oil viscosity Oil gradient PI Reservoir Pressure.Pi Wellhead back pressure.5 bbl/d 31446.D Casing OD Casing ID.245 0. it is referred to Figure 9 (represented by line 4 in the plot) STEP 3 . the HC27000 is selected. the head/stage (ft) is about For further information on the given pump and other pumps in the CENTRILIFT Pump Line . Total Dynamic Head (TDH) STEP 5 .8 m 1035.5 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. Pr Number of wells Following the 9 step procedure from Centrilift STEP 2 .

June 2007 140 .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.

and the GOR is as low as 20.Qi Water Cut .d2 Tubing Id.d4 Length of tubing Bottomhole temperature.124 0.5 bar 114.4 m g H wh Pfriction g Pwh g fluid 3750 Sm^3/d equals 23584.071 bar/m 100 bar Hd Ft Hwh Hd Hd 1906.04340278 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. For the given production volume.8 m 2384.Production capacity For the Inflow Performance Curve for Case B.9 m (deltaPfriction retrieved from PROSPER) Pfriction Pwh fluid fluid g Ft Ft H wh 7823 ft fluid H wh 362.Pwh Desired flowrate. For further information on the given pump and other pumps in the CENTRILIFT Pump Line.Wc Gas-oil ratio Oil gravity Water gravity Water gradient Oil viscosity Oil gradient PI Reservoir Pressure. it is referred to the Baker Hughes website.9 bbl/d 23584. 24.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.d5 Tubing coupling OD. June 2007 Case B: Calculations for sizing the ESP Pump STEP 1 .995 20 843 1030 10300 0.103 bar/m 0.8 m H tubingleng th Hfluidlevel g Hfluidlevel fluid Pwf Hfluidlevel Pwf fluid g Pfriction Ft Head required to exceed wellhead pressure.d1 Tubing OD.00135 7100 250 10000000 10 85 bar 30 bar 3750 Sm3/d 0.127 2748 92 8500000 3000000 0.2667 0.1397 0.D Casing OD Casing ID.Basic data Input Data Pump Setting depth.Pi Wellhead back pressure.245 0.T Flowing bottomhole pressure. Pr Number of wells Following the 9 step procedure from Centrilift (ref) STEP 2 .Pump type Selecting the type of Pump The predetermined production volume of 9. Total Dynamic Head (TDH) STEP 5 .4 m 141 . it is referred to Figure 9 (represented by line 1 in the plot) STEP 3 .Gas calculations As the producing volume of oil is very low compared to the water production. the producing gas is neglected in these calculations STEP 4 . the HC27000 is selected.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. 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. the head/stage (ft) is about This is the assumed optimal pump for this flow rate.

June 2007 142 .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.

Pr Number of wells Following the 9 step procedure from Centrilift STEP 2 . June 2007 Case C: Calculations for sizing the ESP Pump STEP 1 .103 bar/m 0.d2 Tubing Id.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.3 bbl/d 15723.Basic data Input Data Pump Setting depth.3 bbl/d 82.00135 7100 250 7000000 10 60 bar 30 bar 2500 Sm3/d 0.and the GOR is as low as 20.Qi Water Cut . Total Dynamic Head (TDH) STEP 5 . the head/stage (ft) is about This is the assumed optimal pump for this flow rate. the producing gas is neglected in these calculations STEP 4 . it is referred to the Baker Hughes website.124 0. For the given production volume.Wc Gas-oil ratio Oil gravity Water gravity Water gradient Oil viscosity Oil gradient PI Reservoir Pressure. For further information on the given pump and other pumps in the CENTRILIFT Pump Line.995 20 843 1030 10300 0.6 m g H wh Pfriction g Pwh g fluid 2500 Sm^3/d equals 15723.1397 0.6 m (deltaPfriction retrieved from PROSPER) Pfriction Pwh fluid fluid g Ft Ft H wh 8430 ft fluid H wh 362. 25.2667 0.2 m H tubingleng th Hfluidlevel g Hfluidlevel fluid Pwf Hfluidlevel Pwf fluid g Pfriction Ft Head required to exceed wellhead pressure.127 2748 92 6000000 3000000 0.245 0.T Flowing bottomhole pressure.d4 Length of tubing Bottomhole temperature.d5 Tubing coupling OD.071 bar/m 70 bar Hd Ft Hwh Hd Hd 2154.02893519 0. the HC2000 is selected. it is referred to Figure 9 (represented by line 0 in the plot) STEP 3 .8 m 2569.Pwh Desired flowrate.Pi Wellhead back pressure.1 m 143 . 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.D Casing OD Casing ID.Gas calculations As the producing volume of oil is very low compared to the water production.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.Production capacity For the Inflow Performance Curve for Case A.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.d1 Tubing OD.35 bar 52.Pump type Selecting the type of Pump The predetermined production volume of 4.

June 2007 144 .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful