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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

which is strapped to the tubing. 1998) Figure 6 illustrates an example of ESP configuration. Power is transmitted to the subsurface equipment through a three-conductor electric cable. 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).Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. (Jahn et al. June 2007 The electric motor turns at a relatively constant speed. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the correlation used to calculate pressure drop and flow through vales and orifices it is referred to Chapter 6.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. For simplicity. For these calculations. the wells are in this thesis assumed to be vertical. The production wells are planned to be deviated wells. and can be found as Table 1. Also. June 2007 B is the middle stage production (year 2015). the “Beggs and Brill”-correlation is selected for tubing and casing-tubing annular flow and pressure drop calculations. 13 . Case C is the late stage production (year 2020). with 10 wells producing at 3750 Sm3/d and a reservoir pressure at 100 bar. This makes it easier to compare the different artificial lift methods and to establish and compare overall efficiencies. For tubing. The optimal tubing sizes for the different lift methods are determined in each Chapter. with a reservoir pressure on 70 bar. pump setting depth. the program contains several correlations. with the same TVD as the ones planned by the operator. with 10 wells producing at 2500 Sm3/d. well pressures and temperatures. valve and annulus flow and pressure drop calculations. Calculation results are briefly discussed individually in each Chapter. the well performance program PROSPER is used. published in the Journal of Petroleum Technology in 1973. the higher the demand for artificial lift performance. productivity index. The Figure shows that the lower the natural reservoir drive. Figure 12 illustrates one water producer on natural lift at various reservoir pressures (dead well). and compared altogether in the discussion part at the end of the thesis. production flow rates and fluid properties. The correlation is presented in the paper “A study of Two-Phase Flow in Inclined Pipes”. B and C. The Tables consists of casing dimensions. The following Chapters contain the application of the three artificial lift systems for Case A. 2 and 3.1. PROSPER is also used for gas lift design. Finally. Well and reservoir data are gathered from Statoil ASA. In this thesis. the process simulator HYSYS is used for compressor-effect calculations in Chapter 6. generating performance curves and control calculations.

between the suction (producing) fluid and the power fluid is defined as: M mint ake mnozzle Qi Qp Qi . Application of Jet Pump 5.1 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. The dimensionless pressure recovery. as a function of dimensionless mass flow ratio. Qp 14 . M. The dimensionless mass flow ratio. Pd (3) where Pd is the pump discharge pressure in bar. The model will hereafter be called the Tulsa model. N. Following is a short presentation of the model and its main principles.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. is the pressure increase over the pump divided by the pressure difference between the drive fluid and the pump discharge. Pi is the pump intake pressure in bar and Pp is the power fluid pressure in bar. 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. The main purpose of the model is to predict pressure recovery. The model is based on experimental studies conducted at Tulsa University. Mathematically it is defined as follows: N Pd Pp Pi . 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. M. June 2007 5. N. For the model derivation in its entirety it is referred to Appendix A in the above mentioned project.

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

The nozzle loss parameter. respectively.1. June 2007 N B (1 K td )C . the right side of the equation simplifies to the constant 0. This value was estimated in the Tulsa thesis from optimization based on high pressure data. R p is the ratio of the discharge pressure to the power fluid pressure and AWR is the air-water ratio. K n . the importance of the loss parameters is obvious.33 ( AWR ) 0.88 * 10 3 )( R p ) 2. 16 . For single-phase flow.04. equivalent to GOR in a gas-oil system.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. respectively. K td is a combination of the loss parameter for the throat K t and the diffuser K d .33 (7) where R is the ratio of the nozzle to throat area. The analysis was done by a computer program.63 R 0. R p and AWR (Air-Water-Ratio). In the above expression of N. The equation for K td was developed using regression analysis. is in the Tulsa model set to 0. as AWR=0.1 (10. 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. The expression is presented as: K td 0.

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

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

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

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

As for Case A.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Case A: NTNU. 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 ~ 96 bar.1 % and a topside power requirement on 1820 kW. Pump intake pressure is 85 bar (step 23). The discharge pressure is calculated to be 324 bar (step 16 in the Case B calculations. Case B: Referring to Appendix A. Overall Jet Pump efficiency: The total required input effect for all 10 wells are: 4006 kW x 10 = 40.06 MW 21 . June 2007 The calculations in Appendix A for Case A gave a hydraulic efficiency of 33. the efficiency calculation method introduced in Chapter 4 is also applied. Pump intake pressure is 230 bar (step 23). Appendix A). Delta P for the given production is ~ 239 bar. Overall Jet Pump efficiency: The results are further discussed in the next Chapter. using Equation (1) and (2).4 % and a topside power requirement on 4006 kW per well. Case B calculations gave a hydraulic efficiency of 27.

the difference is 1. for all three cases. 22 .9% for hydraulic and overall efficiency. The difference between hydraulic efficiency and overall efficiency is 2. Pump intake pressure is 60 bar (step 23). calculating a hydraulic efficiency on 33. this is proven to be correct. Overall Jet Pump efficiency: The total required input effect for all 10 wells are: 3177 kW x 10 = 31. the efficiency calculation method introduced in Chapter 4 is also applied. 5. In the calculations from the previous Chapter. The discharge pressure is calculated to be 326 bar (step 16 in the Case C calculations. using Equation (1) and (2). Appendix A). June 2007 Results further discussed in next Chapter. As for Case A and B. The combined hydraulic efficiency of the Jet Pump and surface Power Fluid Pump was. Delta P for the given production is ~ 266 bar.8 % and a topside power requirement on 3177 kW per well.4 Evaluation of results Intuitively.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. Case C: Case C calculations gave a hydraulic efficiency of 28.77 MW Results further discussed in next Chapter.5%. higher than for the overall efficiency.4% and 25. For Case B. 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. calculating 27.5%.1% and an overall efficiency on 30.6% for Case A.

Unfortunately. it is seen that the results for all three cases falls within the expected efficiency range.8% while the overall efficiency is 24. PROSPER was used to generate performance curves for the cases using Jet Pump. the calculated difference between the two efficiency measures is 4. one well flowing at 5000 Sm3/d. B and C. none of the nozzle/throat combinations found in PROSPER were equal to the ones selected in Chapter 5. one well flowing at 2500 Sm3/d.3. 23 .2%. Figure 18 represents Case A for Jet Pump.6%. The relatively large difference for Case C is probably due to a fairly high friction pressure loss in the power fluid tubing. Referring to the above mentioned Figures. Figure 19 represents Case B for Jet Pump. while the blue line is the IPR curve and the red line represents the tubing intake pressure curve.2 (Figure 1). and finally Figure 20 represents Case C.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. one well flowing at 3750 Sm3/d. For Case C. which affects the overall efficiency. June 2007 respectively. This indicates that the calculations and results for the Jet Pump option should be fairly reasonable. The hydraulic efficiency is 28. Comparing the hydraulic efficiency calculations for Jet Pump (Appendix A) with the typical Jet Pump hydraulic efficiency range presented in Chapter 2. and some variables were adjusted so that the performance curves should represent the Jet Pump calculations for Case A. the pump discharge pressure curve is represented by the black line. The closest values to the nozzle/throat configuration used here were selected in PROSPER.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maximum available volume flow rate of lift-gas per well is 200 MSm3/d. and the envelope for the gas is plotted in Figure 32 (based on the values for year 2009. (Statoil ASA) As pointed out in Chapter 6.3 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). For Case A: The gas composition for the lift-gas is given in Table 11. the PPO option gives deeper injection but more mandrels and valves required. A gas lift string design was performed using PROSPER. shown in Figure 33.76 MSm3/d. Two different designs are presented. Calculations were conducted for various tubing sizes. June 2007 6. but requires less number of mandrels and valves. One using IPO valves and one using PPO valves. the size of the production tubing affects the gas lift performance significantly. The Figure shows that this option gives shallower injection depth. The injection pressure is kept fixed at 180 bar.1. as seen in Figure 34. in accordance with the design methods and parameters presented in Chapter 6. and the two gas lift designs are illustrated in Figure 33 (IPO) and Figure 34 (PPO). 33 . the volume flow rate of lift-gas required is 196.2.2.9’’ ID and 7. and the tubing-size considered optimal was 6. For the IPO option.0 MSm3/d and the required casing pressure is 171. The input parameters and selections are presented in Table 12 and 13 respectively. Table 11).Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. and maximum casing pressure (lift-gas pressure at wellhead) is set to 180 bar.625’’ OD. according to the drawdown plan presented in Figure 11.2.11 bar. while the required volume flow rate of lift-gas is calculated to be 188. As highlighted in the previous Chapter.

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. Based on assumptions and calculations made in Appendix B. the gas stream flows from the separator to a cooler. The separator inlet stream is 88 °C and 30 bar.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. Useful effect is calculated: Added effect equals compressor effect. a flow chart of the lift-gas compression process at Statfjord was prepared and is presented in Figure 35. The gas lift system is considered a closed system. it is referred to Appendix B. and finally through a second cooler.1. the valve-option resulting in the lowest compressor-effect demand is selected.1 bar. calculations show that the IPO valves are most suited. 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.1. June 2007 In this thesis. which can be found highlighted in Table 10. through a compressor. As seen in the Figure. For the detailed compressor-calculations and valve selection. is 204 bar. For the overall Gas Lift system efficiency. For this Case.5 kW Overall gas lift system efficiency for Case A: 34 .1 to be 531.1. This gives a delta P equal to 61 bar. equation (1) is used: Useful and added effect for gas lift is defined in Chapter 6. while the second cooler outlet stream is 88 °C and 171. where the separator inlet stream equals the flowing wellhead production stream.

showing the tubing performance curves for different values of injected GLR. 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). injected GLR.7% for the given conditions. which results in lower production flow rate. The calculations for the modified Case B show an overall Gas Lift efficiency of 11. First and foremost. 35 . 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). The Figure shows one well on Gas Lift producing at 5000 Sm3/d. wellhead pressure in Case B was set to 5 bara and calculations were performed. according to the above mentioned Figure. this Case (Figure 37: upper inflow line. As illustrated in Figure 37. it is seen that the tubing performance curves representing the higher injected GLR is steeper than the ones representing the lower injected GLR. Referring to Figure 37. June 2007 Inflow and tubing performance curves for the Gas lift Case A is shown in Figure 36. 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. gas gravity and delta P across valve. but should nevertheless show an efficiency trend for the Gas Lift system. which corresponds to an injected GasLiquid Ratio of about 1000. reservoir pressure 100 bara) requires an unreasonably high injected GLR to produce. These values are valve depths.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. For Case B: A plot was prepared in PROSPER (Figure 37).2. Gas Lift is not a feasible lift method for Case B. the higher the friction pressure loss. A production rate of about 1600 Sm3/d is reached when injecting 1600 MSm3/d. Clearly. Calculations are found as Appendix B. This plot is based on the same tubing size as used for Case A and maximum gas injection depth (2748 m). casing pressure. PROSPER input values are enclosed as Table 16. The steeper the curve.

Referring to Figure 37 (lower inflow line. Hence. Calculations with a lower wellhead pressure were conducted also for Case C. if disregarding the friction pressure drop. reservoir pressure is set to 70 bar and wellhead backpressure fixed at 30 bar. but should nevertheless show an efficiency trend for the Gas Lift system. but the efficiency rapidly decrease as the reservoir pressure is falling faster than the required production flow rate for each well (Figure 11). the production demand of 3750 Sm3/d could not be reached. 36 . June 2007 For Case C: As the Gas Lift concept is based on lightening the fluid column.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). Gas Lift gives a very high overall efficiency at the beginning of the 10 year period. The calculations for the modified Case C show an overall Gas Lift efficiency of 9. reservoir pressure 70 bara). Calculations are found as Appendix B. For Case C. For Case B. Hence. As for Case B. which corresponds to an average liquid density of about 150 kg/m3. 6.7% for the given conditions. Maximum flow rate attainable is about 1600 Sm3/d. 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).4 Evaluation of results As the above calculations show. independent of the injected GLR. at an unreasonably high injected GLR of 1000. Gas Lift is not feasible 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. the tubing performance curves on the plot represent assumed optimal configurations of tubing and maximum gas injection depth.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. it is shown that the Gas lifted well will not produce for Case C. the total static pressure gradient for the fluid column must be less than 40 bar.3.

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

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

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

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

just like other methods of artificial lift. Number of pump stages will affect the pump performance significantly. as long as the pump physically fits in the tubing.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. 7. To optimise pump performance. The procedure varies considerable with well conditions or fluids to be pumped. 41 . June 2007 7.1 Main factors to control pump performance As for the other artificial lift methods. This is illustrated in Figure 49. where the curve for the pump discharge pressure is quite steep compared to the IPR curve for the Gas Lift seen in. while other factors have little or no influence on the pump performance. As illustrated in Figure 48. for instance. as the total pressure gain over the pump will enhance. the production flow rate will increase considerably with increasing number of stages. have to be taken into consideration when sizing the ESP system.2.2.2 ESP performance 7. Changes in the wellhead back pressure will also be of less consequence for the ESP performance compared to the Gas Lift. Collection of good data covering these conditions prior to sizing a submersible installation is essential to proper sizing. the tubing size has little influence on ESP performance. is not an exact science and involves a number of factors. the above mentioned factors and several others. there are some main factors which affect the ESP performance significantly. production history and reservoir conditions are very important. Figure 27. The operating frequency is proportional to the pump impellers RPM. This is seen in Figure 47. Another factor that influences the performance of the ESP is the pump operating frequency. where the production flow rate increases with increase in the operating frequency. As opposed to Gas Lift.2 ESP sizing The sizing of a submersible pumping installation. Detailed information on well completion.

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

the overall efficiency for Case A was 66%.4 Evaluation of results Comparing the above results with the typical ESP hydraulic efficiencies presented in Chapter 2. Plots of overall efficiency and power requirement for the three Artificial Lift systems are presented as Figure 59 and Figure 60. Keeping this in mind. By using the same ESP input values in PROSPER as calculated here. Figure 57 one ESP lifted well flowing at 3750 Sm3/d and Figure 58 one well flowing at 2500 Sm3/d. where the pump chosen is not optimal for the Case. Also.9% and 24. 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. This is further explained below the calculations for Case A. However.4.7% for Case B and C. efficiency was not attainable.3 are surprisingly similar. Jet Pump has reported overall efficiencies on 30.5% for Case A to 25. As illustrated in Figure 59. As earlier emphasized. Figure 57 and Figure 58. Some assumptions had to be made regarding the ESP equipment characteristics. They all fall into the expected efficiency range. As seen in Figure 56. Figure 56 shows one ESP lifted well flowing at 5000 Sm3/d.2 (Figure 1). June 2007 7. For Gas Lift. except for Case A. they seem reasonable. performance curves with flow rates for the three cases were generated. as it was not possible to gather information about a few specific parts. varying from 37. while for Case B and C. the results from the PROSPER calculations and the manual calculations in Chapter 7. the accuracy of these assumptions must be taken into consideration when evaluating the efficiency and power-requirement results.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.2% for Case B and C respectively. it seems like the hydraulic efficiency is a few percent higher than the overall efficiency. as indicated in the Jet Pump calculations and in Chapter 5. PROSPER provides ESP options with pump characteristics very close to the pumps chosen in this thesis. which is used for the ESP calculations. ESP is the artificial lift system with the highest overall efficiency for the three Cases.6% for Case A to 43. 45 . the calculation results for ESP are considered to be reasonable.

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

t the time in years and r the discount rate.C and Petrie. a lifetime period of 3 years is selected for the Jet Pumps. the following equation is used: .. is 300 000 NOK. the Law of Scaling (Gudmundsson.6 (16) 47 . H. For the calculations in this Chapter. J. Using a conversion factor of 6. the investment costs will vary greatly depending on the inquirer. from 1989.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. In this thesis. However. the Jet Pumps handle an average of about 20 000 Barrels/day. As investment costs for a Jet Pump system was difficult to obtain directly from the manufacturers. 2007-06-05) is used: NOK2 = NOK1 x (Capacity2/Capacity1)0.1 Capex estimates using Jet Pump Regarding the continuity of the Jet Pump. Artificial Lift Capex Estimates for Statfjord Investment costs and equipment price will vary greatly between the different manufacturers of artificial lift systems. cooperation history et cetera. Here. (15) where is the present value. and the reliability of the source used here can be discussed. Investment costs for the Jet Pump is in the paper estimated to 46 000 USD per pump. the value in year t.. Hence. per pump. F. 8. the Jet Pump investment cost.5 NOK/USD. this is for a Jet Pump handling a maximum of 200 Barrels/day. To estimate a Capex price for these pumps. For discount calculations.S. depending on the well conditions. Capex numbers for the Jet Pump option was difficult to obtain.L. a discount rate of 6% is used. an estimated value from the paper “Artificial Lift Selection for Gas Well Deliquification” (Lea. The different customers receive individual equipment and service prices depending on total value of the order. The paper states that Jet Pumps normally lasts between 1-3 years when properly sized and operated. June 2007 8. according to well conditions with minimal gas production and with treated water as power fluid. it is referred to the SPE paper “Obtaining Low Bottomhole Pressure in Deep Wells with Hydraulic Jet Pumps” by Christ. 2005) is used for the Capex estimate. J. et al.

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

Pump discharge pressure is assumed linearly decreasing from 300 bara in year 0 to 285 bara in year 10. B and C calculations from Chapter 5 and 7. For the ESP solution. 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. this is not a technically feasible Artificial Lift solution for the depressurization process. the NPV Opex is about 1311 million NOK.1 million NOK per well per year. The excel spreadsheet for the ESP Opex calculations is found as Table 26. a well intervention will cost about 20 million NOK per well.3 Opex estimates using ESP One of the largest uncertainties regarding the operational expenses for ESP is the lifetime of the pumps. as well as an overview of the discounted production costs per year. The Opex calculations for both Jet Pump and ESP are plotted together with the belonging artificial lift efficiencies in Figure 63. 9. One should be aware of that overall efficiency reported in this plot is the expected overall efficiency trend based on Case A. As a retrieval of the ESP pump requires a full well intervention and pulling of the tubing. 9. The Table contains NPV Opex.2 Opex estimates using Gas Lift As shown earlier in the thesis. The ESP overall efficiency has been assumed linearly increasing from year 0 to year 5. June 2007 NPV Opex for the Jet Pump solution were calculated to be about 948 million NOK (Table 25).5 million NOK per well per year.7% from year 5-10. which is about 9. Economical estimations for Gas Lift will therefore not be conducted. Table 25 contains the NPV Opex. or an average of 13.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. According to available information from the operator. The overall efficiency for the whole depressurization period is 51 . the pump lifetime is vital to the economical estimates for the Artificial Lift method. and steady at 43.

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

To evaluate the influence of the wellhead backpressure. the drop in wellhead backpressure was not sufficient to deliver the required water production flow rate. as the compressor input power is of vital importance to the overall efficiency for Gas Lift. as the power requirement is zero. the extra power needed to compress the gas from 5 bara instead of 30 bara resulted in a very low overall power efficiency. When considering the Gas Lift system as a closed system. as the reservoir pressure declines much faster than the required production flow rate per well. However. calculations were made for Case B and C. In general. This method is very dependent on the power requirement of the topside compressor and the existing process-system on the platform. data for both the lift-gas and the wellconditions should be fairly accurate. Referring to Chapter 2.2. for the calculations in Chapter 6. For Case B and C. Gas Lift was proven unsuitable as the Gas Lift system was unable to deliver the required flow rate regardless of the injected GLR. 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. ESP was calculated to be the artificial lift alternative with the highest overall power efficiency for Case B and C. Andreassen (1990) and Jahn et al. Gas Lift has a high overall efficiency for one well producing with a relatively high reservoir pressure. the overall Gas Lift efficiency calculation methods presented in this thesis can be discussed. and the efficiency can not be calculated. lowering the wellhead pressure from 30 to 5 bara. Some parts of the Gas Lift design was performed using PROSPER. 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. However. the method was in this thesis used in an effort to make comparable values for artificial lift efficiency. a Gas Lift compressor should not be needed.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. Also. and it can be discussed whether or not the user input was entirely correct. However. but the efficiency declines rapidly. this 53 . If the gas is already compressed to the desired casing pressure. in a transport compressor or similar. June 2007 10. (1998). Gas Lift design is a difficult and complex exercise and too many inaccurate assumptions can significantly affect the final Gas Lift design.

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

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

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

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

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

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

T Flowing bottomhole pressure.Qi Water Cut .Pwh Desired flowrate.2667 0.05787037 0. June 2007 Tables Table 1: Well data for Case A (Statoil ASA) Input Data Pump Setting depth.2667 0.995 20 843 10300 0.00135 7100 250 60 .D Casing OD Casing ID.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.Pi Wellhead back pressure.Pi Wellhead back pressure.Qi Water Cut .245 92 23000000 3000000 0.d1 Bottomhole temperature.d1 Bottomhole temperature.T Flowing bottomhole pressure.Pwh Desired flowrate.D Casing OD Casing ID.995 20 843 10300 0.245 92 8500000 3000000 0.00135 7100 250 Table 2: Well data for Case B (Statoil ASA) Input Data Pump Setting depth.043402778 0.Wc Gas-oil ratio Oil gravity Water gradient Oil viscosity Oil gradient PI Unit m m m °C Pa Pa Sm^3/s Sm^3/Sm^3 kg/sm^3 Pa/m Pas Pa/m Sm^3/d/bar Value 2748 0.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.

setting the return conduit to “casing-tubing annulus”.028935185 0.T Flowing bottomhole pressure. Case A.Pi Wellhead back pressure. 61 .00135 7100 250 NTNU.245 92 6000000 3000000 0. This is calculated by PROSPER.Qi Water Cut . June 2007 Table 4: Data table for the return annular liquid flow. Chapter 5.995 20 843 10300 0.3) and the corresponding friction pressure loss.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Table 3: Well data for Case C (Statoil ASA) Input Data Pump Setting depth.d1 Bottomhole temperature. Highlighted are the return liquid flow rate (step 11.D Casing OD Casing ID.2667 0.Wc Gas-oil ratio Oil gravity Water gradient Oil viscosity Oil gradient PI Unit m m m °C Pa Pa Sm^3/s Sm^3/Sm^3 kg/sm^3 Pa/m Pas Pa/m Sm^3/d/bar Value 2748 0.Pwh Desired flowrate.

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

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

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

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 .

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix B. June 2007 Table 18: Data for the producing gas lift well. 72 .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 .

MMNOK 2010 4 4 20.30 6.8 2012 10 6 100 89.84 11.3 2016 10 8 120 84.10 years.Brent Group (Statfjord Field) Year Total # wells at end of year # New Pumps Total pump equipment price.6 2017 10 6 90 59. June 2007 Table 22: CAPEX Estimate – Jet Pump.00 2014 10 4 20.3 2015 10 6 90 67.4 792.84 7.00 2011 8 4 20.00 18.90 16.27 11.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Table 21: Data Chart for Figure ESP Case C NTNU.00 2013 10 4 20.8 2014 10 6 90 71. CAPEX Estimate for Jet Pump Solution .79 15.87 8.00 2020 10 4 20.5 2019 10 8 120 71.00 2017 10 4 20.00 20.0 2011 8 6 110 103.00 2016 10 4 20.00 2015 10 2 10. MMNOK 2010 4 4 80 80.47 14.00 2019 10 4 20. MMNOK Discounted investment costs.10 years.4 74 .17 144. MMNOK Discounted investment costs.0 2020 10 1 15 8.0 2013 10 8 120 100. MMNOK Total discounted investment costs.Brent Group (Statfjord Field) Year Total # wells at end of year # New Pumps Total pump equipment price. CAPEX Estimate for ESP Solution . MMNOK Total discounted investment costs.00 2012 10 2 10.00 2018 10 2 10.6 Table 23: CAPEX Estimate – ESP.10 13.9 2018 10 6 90 56.

434 0.147 kg/s Fuel gas density 0.5 29. % Average expected pump discharge pressure. kW Total input effect = Total useful effect / efficiency. availability ok Table 25: OPEX Estimate – Jet Pump OPEX Estimate for Jet Pump Solution .7 2.8 25. 948 75 .7 26. MMNOK Discounted total production costs / year.5 NOK/Sm3 Spec.5 37224.2 24. 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.7 0.5 228 223 12190 2011 6. bara △ Total useful effect = Q_production × P.5 0 0 37224. Diesel cost 4 NOK/litre Spec.6 160000 88748936.Brent Group (Statfjord Field) Year Average # wells through year Average Reservoir pressure.10 years. MMNOK 2010 2. CO2 cost 0.499 0.9 25.7 27. Nox cost 40 NOK/kg CO2 faktor 2.2 325 325 325 325 325 325 325 325 325 325 325 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.686 m3CO2/Sm3 Fuel gas consumtion@20 MW 1.0021 kgNOx/Sm3 NOx factor SAC 0.5 24.4 % Spare engine available.6 25.0121 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. cost (NOK/kWh) 22157. Sm^3/d Average expected Artificial Lift efficiency. fuel gas cost 0.6 21448.5 170 158 30206 2012 9.84 NOK/Sm3 Spec.17 555 69386.7 399799.7456 kg/m3 Gassens brennverdi 47940 kJ/kg Turbinens heat rate 9900 kJ/kW*hr NOx factor DLE 0.6 28. CO2 cost 0.9 24. bara Average total production.6 3722.523 Assumptions Spec. MMNOK Estimated well intervention costs / year. MMNOK Total production costs / year.5 2800 65904.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Table 24: Production cost of electrical power at Statfjord (Statoil ASA).5 2800 NTNU.412 83630.84 NOK/litre Spec. 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. Production cost of electrical power : NOK/kW DLE SAC kNOK/Year kNOK/Year 22157.

5 228 2011 6.6 158 30206 38. % Average expected pump discharge pressure. kW Average power costs / year.7 64 27500 43. kW Total input effect = Total useful effect / efficiency.3 94 40000 42. 1311 76 .5 85 37500 43.7 72 32500 43.5 170 2012 9. MMNOK Total production costs / year.7 60 25000 43.10 years. MMNOK # Well interventions / year Estimated well intervention costs / year.7 68 30000 43.5 135 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. MMNOK 2010 2.7 300 298 296 295 293 291 290 289 287 286 285 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. June 2007 Table 26: OPEX Estimate – ESP OPEX Estimate for ESP Solution . Sm^3/d Average expected Artificial Lift efficiency.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.7 76 35000 43. bara Average total production.0 103 42500 41.Brent Group (Statfjord Field) Year Average # wells through year Average Reservoir pressure. bara △ Total useful effect = Q_production × P. bara Average flowing bottomhole pressure. MMNOK Discounted total production costs / year.8 118 42478 40.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(PROSPER generated) 86 .0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves .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 0.000 (percent) Com pletion Cased Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.48 Perm eability No Relative Predicting Pressure and Tem perature (offshore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Reservoir Pres sure 250.00 3=200.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Intersection Dis Allow Reservoir Tem perature 92. June 2007 Variables 1:Reservoir Pressure (BARa) 1 2 0=70.00 1=100.00 4=250.00 2=150.00 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 30.0 (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.95 0.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.Water Producer on Natural Lift 320 4 3 2 1 0 NTNU.

PDP = Pump Discharge Pressure.No zzle (1 5) Throat (3 ) An 0.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves 60 0 IPR Curve VL P Curve PDP NTNU.00 4=800 .084 At 0.0 1=100 0.00 1=200 .0 (d eg C) Fie ld Statfjord JET Pum p Te s t .No zzle (1 5) Throat (3 ) An 0.00 3=600 . (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 .0 (m ) Grave l Pa ck No Well Type Pro ducer Bottom True Vertical Depth27 48.322 R 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 .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.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 0.00 (BARa ) 25 Com pan y Statoil Le ft-Ha nd Inte rs e ctio n Dis Allow Res e rvoir Tem pe ra tu re 92 .084 At 0.00 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 . (PROSPER generated) 87 .00 2=400 .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.322 R 0.00 (BARa ) Inflow Type Single Bran ch Flu id Oil Water Cu t 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.0 (d eg C) Fie ld Statfjord JET Pum p Te s t . PDP = Pump Discharge Pressure.00 (BARa ) Inflow Type Single Bran ch Flu id Oil Water Cu t 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 .0 2=200 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 .00 0 (p erce nt) 10 Com pletion Cas e d Ho le Flo w Typ e An nula r Bottom Meas ure d De pth27 48.0 (m ) Grave l Pa ck No Well Type Pro ducer Bottom True Vertical Depth27 48.0 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 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. June 2007 Va riab les 3:Jet Pum p Inje ction Rate (Sm 3/da y) 1 2 3 0=500 .

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

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 250.0 (m ) Gas Coning No Artificial Lift Jet Pum p Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill Res ervoir Model PI Entry Lift Type Tubing Injection . Petrie.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. Cavitation occurs where the throat pressure is drawn below the produced fluids vapour pressure (Christ.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Inters ection Dis Allow Res ervoir Tem perature 92. 1989) Inflow v Outflow Curves .084 At 0.262 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 Depth2748.322 R 0.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord JET Pum p Tes t . F. (PROSPER generated) 89 . PDP = Pump Discharge Pressure.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.Nozzle (15) Throat (3) An 0.L.C. June 2007 Figure 17: Pressure history of produced fluid as it enters and travels through the jet pump. H.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.

0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Intersection Dis Allow Reservoir Tem perature 92.1 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.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.(PROSPER generated) 90 .084 At 0.000 (percent) Com pletion Cased Hole Flow Type Annular Bottom Meas ured Depth2748. PDP = Pump Discharge Pressure.322 R 0.262 Well Eksem pel Analyst BFS Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Figure 19: Jet Pump performance curves.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord JET Pum p Test .00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100. June 2007 Inflow v Outflow Curves .Nozzle (15) Throat (3) An 0.0 (m ) Gas Coning No Artificial Lift Jet Pum p Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill Reservoir Model PI Entry Lift Type Tubing Injection .

0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.000 (percent) Com pletion Cased Hole Flow Type Annular Bottom Meas ured Depth2748. 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.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves . PDP = Pump Discharge Pressure.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Intersection Dis Allow Reservoir Tem perature 92.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord JET Pum p Test .1 well flowing @ 2500 Sm^3/d 400 IPR Curve VLP Curve PDP NTNU.(PROSPER generated) 91 .210 Well Eksem pel Analyst BFS Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Figure 20: Jet Pump performance curves.Nozzle (17) Throat (4) An 0.0 (m ) Gas Coning No Artificial Lift Jet Pum p Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill Reservoir Model PI Entry Lift Type Tubing Injection .628 R 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 70.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.

92 .00 Power. June 2007 Hydraulic Efficiency vs.0 0.00 10000. Case A 40 35 16E 30 25 Nozzle 16 Nozzle 17 Hydraulic Efficiency.0 0.00 2000. Power Requirement 35.0 30.00 4000.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. [%] Nozzle 18 20 Nozzle 19 Nozzle 20 15 10 5 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Power.00 Figure 22: Nozzle/Throat selection for Case B.0 Nozzle 17 Nozzle 18 Nozzle 19 15.0 Nozzle 20 10.0 16E 25. [HP] 8000. Hydraulic Efficiency vs.0 Nozzle 16 Hydraulic Efficiency.00 12000. Power Requirement.0 5. [%] 20.00 6000. [HP] 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 Figure 21: Nozzle/Throat selection for Case A.

0 0.0 Nozzle 16 Hydraulic Efficiency.00 10000.0 Nozzle 17 Nozzle 18 15.00 12000.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. 93 .00 2000.0 Nozzle 19 Nozzle 20 10.0 30.0 5. [%] 20.00 Figure 23: Nozzle/Throat selection for Case C.00 14000.00 6000.0 19B 25.00 4000. power requirement 35. June 2007 Hydraulic Efficiency vs.00 Power. [HP] 8000.0 0.

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

June 2007 Variables 1:Reservoir Pressure (BARa) 1 2 0=200.0 (m ) Gas Coning No Artificial Lift Gas Lift Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill Reservoir Model PI Entry Lift Type Friction Los s In Annulus Vertical Lift Correlation Beggs and Brill 0.95 0.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.00 2=250. (PROSPER generated) 95 .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.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves 320 NTNU.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 30.00 1=225.48 Perm eability No Relative Predicting Pressure and Tem perature (offshore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Reservoir Pres sure 250.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.

000 (percent) Com pletion Cased Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100. (PROSPER generated) 96 .00 2=6.00 300 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 30.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.00 1=4.00 3=8.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves 400 NTNU.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 0.0 (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. June 2007 Variables 3:Tubing/Pipe Diameter (inches ) 1 2 1 3 0=2.48 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.

000 (percent) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves 320 NTNU.95 0.00 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.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 100.48 ervoir Model PI Entry Res Lift Type Friction Los s In Annulus Relative Perm eability No Predicting Pres s ure and Tem perature (offs hore) Solution Node Bottom Node Temperature Model Rough Approximation Left-Hand Inters ection Dis Allow Res ervoir Pres s ure 250.0 (m ) Com pletion Cas ed Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom True Vertical Depth2748. June 2007 Variables 1:Firs t Node Pres s ure (BARa) 1 2 0=5.0 (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. (PROSPER generated) Figure 28: Example of a Gas Lift performance curve.00 1=10.00 4=25. 97 .00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Res ervoir Tem perature 92.00 2=15.00 5=30.

net) 98 .95 0.00 1=100.48 Perm eability No Relative Predicting Pressure and Tem perature (offshore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Reservoir Pres sure 250.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves 320 NTNU.000 (percent) Com pletion Cased Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth2748. June 2007 Variables 3:Casing Pressure (BARa) 1 2 1 0 3 0=50.0 (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. (PROSPER generated) Figure 30: Two different valve-concepts.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.0 (m ) Gas Coning No Artificial Lift Gas Lift Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill Reservoir Model PI Entry Lift Type Friction Los s In Annulus Vertical Lift Correlation Beggs and Brill 0.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Intersection Dis Allow Reservoir Tem perature 92.00 2=150.valve-world.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.00 240 3 2 1 0 2 3 Pressure (BARa) 160 80 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Liquid Rate (Sm 3/day) PVT Method Black Oil Top Node Press ure 30. the pressure valve (IPO).00 3=200. to the right the Fluid Valve (PPO). (www. To the left.

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

(PROSPER generated) 100 .000 (percent) Mi nimum Spaci ng 76. June 2007 0 0 30 60 90 120 GASLIFT DESIGN (NEW WELL) REPORT Val ve Type Casi ng Sensiti ve Mi n CHP Decrease Per Valve 3.000 (1000Sm3/d) 2 Fl owi ng Top Node Pressure 30.95 0.0 (deg C) Figure 33: Gas lift design for Case A.2 (m) Static Gradi ent Of Load Fl uid 0.0 (Sm3/Sm3) ACTUAL Liqui d Rate5000.00 (BARa) Reservoi r Temperature 92.48 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 00.00 (BARa) Ki ck-Off Inj ecti on Pressure180.052 (1000Sm3/d) 1 ACTUAL Inj ecti on Pressure171.00 (BARa) Operati ng Injection Pressure180.103 (bar/m) Mi nimum Transfer dP 25.00 (percent) Safety For Closure Of Last Unloadi ng Val ve 2.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Temperature (deg C) NTNU.0 (m) Water Cut 100.5 (Sm3/day) ACTUAL Oil Rate 0 (Sm3/day) ACTUAL Gas Injection Rate 96. Chapter 6.00 (BARa) Unl oading Top Node Pressure 30.5 (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 0.447 (bar) Desi gn Rate Method Entered By User Desi gn Li qui d Rate5000. based on input parameters presented in Table 12 (IPO Valves).00 (BARa) Desi red dP Across Valve 1.4.11 (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 (1000Sm3/d) 2 Maximum Gas Duri ng Unl oading00.000 (bar) Total GOR 20.000 (bar) Maximum Depth Of Inj ecti on2748.

000 (percent) Minimum Spacing 76. (HYSYS generated) 101 .00 (BARa) Operating Injection Pressure180.95 0.00 (BARa) Reservoir Temperature 92. June 2007 0 0 30 60 90 120 GASLIFT DESIGN (NEW WELL) REPORT Valve Type Tubing Sensitive Percent Pcasing-Pwh 30.5 (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 0.000 (1000Sm3/d) 2 Flowing Top Node Pressure 30.103 (bar/m) Minimum Transfer dP 25.00 (BARa) Desired dP Across Valve 1.000 (bar) Total GOR 20.48 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. based on input parameters presented in Table 13 (PPO Valves).00 (BARa) Kick-Off Injection Pressure180.4. (PROSPER generated) Figure 35: Flow chart for the lift-gas compression process.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Temperature (deg C) (Eksempel 08 May 07 13:15) NTNU.00 (percent) Design Rate Method Entered By User Design Liquid Rate5000.00 (percent) Safety For Closure Of Last Unloading Valve 2.000 (1000Sm3/d) 2 Maximum Gas During Unloading00.000 (bar) Maximum Depth Of Injection2748.0 (m) Water Cut 100.2 (m) Static Gradient Of Load Fluid 0.5 (Sm3/day) ACTUAL Oil Rate 0 (Sm3/day) ACTUAL Gas Injection Rate 88.0 (deg C) Figure 34: Gas lift design for Case A.0 (Sm3/Sm3) ACTUAL Liquid Rate5000.760 (1000Sm3/d) 1 ACTUAL Injection Pressure180.00 (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. Chapter 6.00 (BARa) Unloading Top Node Pressure 30.

95 0.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748. 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. (PROSPER generated) 102 .000 (percent) Com pletion Cased Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.48 Perm eability No Relative Predicting Pressure and Tem perature (offshore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Reservoir Pres sure 250.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves .00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord Well Eksem pel Analyst BFS Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Figure 36: Gas Lift performance curves for Case A.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Intersection Dis Allow Reservoir Tem perature 92.1 well flowing @ 5000 Sm^3/d 320 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.

00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Intersection Dis Allow Reservoir Tem perature 92.0 4=400. (PROSPER generated).0 3 Pressure (BARa) E E 160 E E E 11 16 06 E E 01 15 14 12 05 13 04 02 03 80 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 07 06 05 04 03 02 01 00 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Liquid Rate (Sm 3/day) PVT Method Black Oil Top Node Press ure 30.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord Well Eksem pel Analyst BFS Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Figure 37: Gas Lift Performance curves for different values of injected GLR. Case B and C (Reservoir pressure at 100 and 70 bara).Case B & C 320 NTNU.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves .48 Perm eability No Relative Predicting Pressure and Tem perature (offshore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Reservoir Pres sure 70.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.95 0.000 (percent) Com pletion Cased Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth2748. E= Erosional Velocity Limit Exceeded (high dP friction for the marked flowrates).0 6=600.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.0 1=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=70.0 2=200.00 0=50. 103 .0 (m ) Gas Coning No Artificial Lift Gas Lift Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill Reservoir Model PI Entry Lift Type Friction Los s In Annulus Vertical Lift Correlation Beggs and Brill 0.0 3=300.0 5=500.00 1=100.

95 0.2 (PROSPER generated).00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Inters ection Dis Allow Res ervoir Tem perature 92.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Gas Lift Performance Curve 28 00 NTNU.48 Perm eability No Relative Predicting Pres s ure and Tem perature (offs hore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Res ervoir Pres s ure 100.00 (BARa ) 10 Res e rvoir Tem pe ra tu re 92 . (PROSPER generated) Inflow v Outflow Curves .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 0.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748. 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 48.2.95 0.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 ) 27 48.48 Res e rvoir Mo del PI Entry 1 Xma s Tree 0 (m ) Relative Perm eab ility No 3 Tubing 274 8.0 ) (m Res e rvoir Pres s ure 0. 104 .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 0.0 (d eg C) Figure 38: Gas Lift Performance Chart for Appendix B.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.000 (percent) Com pletion Cas ed Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.

000 (bar) Maximum Depth Of Inj ecti on 2748. (HYSYS generated) 105 . Appendix B.00 (BARa) Reservoi r Temperature 92.2.00 (percent) Safety For Closure Of Last Unloadi ng Val ve 2.3 (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 0.2 (m) Static Gradi ent Of Load Fl uid 0.00 (BARa) Ki ck-Off Inj ecti on Pressure 130.00 (BARa) Desi red dP Across Valve 1.2.0 (deg C) Figure 40: Gas lift design for Appendix B.00 (BARa) Unl oading Top Node Pressure 5.000 (bar) Total GOR 20.000 (1000Sm3/d) Fl owi ng Top Node Pressure 5.103 (bar/m) Mi nimum Transfer dP 25. (PROSPER generated) Figure 41: Flow chart for the lift-gas compression process.000 (percent) 1 Mi nimum Spaci ng 76. based on input parameters presented in Table 17 (PPO Valves).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 100.48 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 1200.3 (Sm3/day) ACTUAL Oil Rate 0 (Sm3/day) ACTUAL Gas Injection Rate848.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Temperature (deg C) (Eksempel 29 May 07 12:23) NTNU. June 2007 0 0 30 60 90 120 GASLIFT DESIGN (NEW WELL) REPORT Val ve Type Tubing Sensitive Percent Pcasi ng-Pwh 30.00 (BARa) Operati ng Injection Pressure 130.00 (percent) Desi gn Rate Method Entered By User Desi gn Li qui d Rate 2645.0 (m) Water Cut 00.205 (1000Sm3/d) ACTUAL Inj ecti on Pressure 130.95 0.0 (Sm3/Sm3) ACTUAL Liqui d Rate 2645.000 (1000Sm3/d) Maximum Gas Duri ng Unl oading 1200.

0 (m ) Gas Coning No Artificial Lift Gas Lift Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill Reservoir Model PI Entry Lift Type Friction Los s In Annulus Vertical Lift Correlation Beggs and Brill 0.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord Well Eksem pel Analyst BFS Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Figure 43: Inflow/outflow curves for Appendix B.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 5.48 Reservoir Model PI Entry 1 Xmas Tree 0 ) (m Relative Perm eability No 3 Tubing 2748.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100. (PROSPER generated) Inflow v Outflow Curves .00 (BARa) Reservoir Tem perature 92.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Intersection Dis Allow Reservoir Tem perature 92.0 (m ) Com pletion Cased Hole 2748.48 Perm eability No Relative Predicting Pressure and Tem perature (offshore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Reservoir Pres sure 70. 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 (deg C) Figure 42: Gas Lift Performance Chart for Appendix B.Modified Case C 240 Variables 2:GLR Injected (Sm 3/Sm 3) 1 2 0=500.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.95 0.3.3 (PROSPER generated).95 0.000 (percent) Com pletion Cased Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Gas Lift Performance Plot 1540 NTNU.0 ) (m Reservoir Pres sure 70.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Beggs and Brill Gas Coning No Beggs and Brill 0. 106 .

95 0.00 (BARa) Kick-Off Injection Pressure110.00 (BARa) Desired dP Across Valve 1.2 (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. June 2007 0 0 30 60 90 120 GASLIFT DESIGN (NEW WELL) REPORT Valve Type Tubing Sensitive Percent Pcasing-Pwh 30.000 (1000Sm3/d) 9 Flowing Top Node Pressure 5.0 (m) Water Cut 100.00 (BARa) Unloading Top Node Pressure 5.2 (Sm3/day) ACTUAL Oil Rate 0 (Sm3/day) ACTUAL Gas Injection Rate 36.00 (BARa) Operating Injection Pressure110.2 (m) Static Gradient Of Load Fluid 0.00 (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 (Sm3/Sm3) ACTUAL Liquid Rate1539.000 (bar) Maximum Depth Of Injection2748.000 (bar) Total GOR 20.000 (1000Sm3/d) 9 Maximum Gas During Unloading00.716 (1000Sm3/d) 7 ACTUAL Injection Pressure110.00 (BARa) Reservoir Temperature 92.103 (bar/m) Minimum Transfer dP 25.3.0 (deg C) Figure 44: Gas lift design for Appendix B.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Temperature (deg C) NTNU. based on input parameters presented in Table 18 (PPO Valves).3. (HYSYS generated) 107 .00 (percent) Safety For Closure Of Last Unloading Valve 2.00 (percent) Design Rate Method Entered By User Design 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 (percent) Minimum Spacing 76. (PROSPER generated) Figure 45: Flow chart for the lift-gas compression process. Appendix B.

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

00 3=80.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves 40 0 IPR Curve VL P Curve PDP NTNU.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Inters ection Dis Allow Res ervoir Tem perature 92.000 (percent) Com pletion Cas ed Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.95 0. Inflow v Outflow Curves 540 IPR Curve VLP Curve PDP Variables 1:Num ber of Stages 1 2 0=20.00 (BARa ) 25 Com pan y Statoil Res e rvoir Tem pe ra tu re 92 .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 0.0 0 3=20.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.95 0.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 ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.00 2=60. (PROSPER generated).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. June 2007 Va riab les 1:Firs t No de Pres s ure (BARa) 1 2 0=5.0 0 2=15.0 (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 0.0 0 5=30.0 (d eg C) ESP Pum p ESP .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.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.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. (PROSPER generated) 109 .0 (deg C) Field Statfjord ESP Pum p ESP .00 1=10.00 0 (p erce nt) 10 Inflow Type Single Bran ch Flu id Oil Bottom Meas ure d De pth27 48.0 0 4=25.00 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 30.0 (m ) Com pletion Cas e d Ho le Flo w Typ e Tu bing Bottom True Vertical Depth27 48.

0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.00 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 30.00 3=60.48 Perm eability No Relative Predicting Pres s ure and Tem perature (offs hore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Res ervoir Pres s ure 250.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves 490 IPR Curve VLP Curve PDP NTNU.00 1=40.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Inters ection Dis Allow Res ervoir Tem perature 92.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.00 2=50.95 0. June 2007 Variables 1:Operating Frequency (Hertz) 1 2 0=30.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord ESP Pum p ESP .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.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.000 (percent) Com pletion Cas ed Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth2748. (PROSPER generated) 110 .

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

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

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

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

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

TN1050C Well Eksem pel ESP Motor Analyst BFS ESP Cable #1 Copper Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Figure 56: ESP .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. PDP = Pump Discharge Pressure.performance curves.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 30.00 (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 250.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves .(PROSPER generated) 116 .0 (deg C) Field Statfjord ESP Pum p ESP .

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves . PDP = Pump Discharge Pressure.IA600 Well Eksem pel ESP Motor Analyst BFS ESP Cable #1 Copper Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Figure 57: ESP . 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 30.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.performance 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 0.48 Perm eability No Relative Predicting Pressure and Tem perature (offshore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Reservoir Pres sure 100.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord ESP Pum p CENTRILIFT .00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Intersection Dis Allow Reservoir Tem perature 92.95 0.1 well flowing @ 3750 Sm^3/d 800 IPR Curve VLP Curve PDP NTNU.(PROSPER generated) 117 .

PDP = Pump Discharge Pressure.1 well flowing @ 2500 Sm^3/d 440 IPR Curve VLP Curve PDP NTNU. GL and Jet Pump.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 .(PROSPER generated) Figure 59: Artificial Lift efficiency based on Case A.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.95 0.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord ESP Pum p CENTRILIFT .performance curves.48 Perm eability No Relative Predicting Pressure and Tem perature (offshore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Reservoir Pres sure 70. 118 . 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. B and C.HC19000 Well Eksem pel ESP Motor Analyst BFS ESP Cable #1 Copper Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Figure 58: ESP .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. for ESP.000 (percent) Com pletion Cased Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 2007 128 .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.

June 2007 129 .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.

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

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. June 2007 131 .

June 2007 132 .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.

June 2007 133 .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.

Case A Calculations for compressor effect. respectively. 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. To reduce required compressor effect. June 2007 Appendix B.1 – Gas Lift calculations. For the PPO-option we have: Z(@30bar/20°C) = 0.8722 k = 1. Table 14 and 15 contains values for the PPO and IPOoptions.4 134 . where (18) Adiabatic compression work. year 2009). Case A: From the real gas law we have: .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. equation (9): Inserting equation 18 into equation 9 yields: (19) The gas lift system is considered a closed system. at the given inlet pressure and temperature. where the inlet pressure for the topside liftgas compressor is equal to the flowing wellhead pressure (30 bara). the gas-stream is run through a cooler before reaching the compressor.

The results show that the manual calculations presented here are fairly accurate. we get: Hence.5 kW. HYSYS calculations for the IPO-alternative gave a compressor effect on 531. we get: For the IPO-option we have: Z(@30bar/20°C) = 0. we get the compression effect by using equation (10): Inserting an assumed compressor-efficiency on 85%.8722 k = 1. the IPO-option is chosen for further calculations.3.4 Inserting an assumed compressor-efficiency on 85%. June 2007 Based on the adiabatic compression work. The HYSYS-flow chart for the process is shown as Figure 35.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. 135 . even though the above calculations show very little deviation in compressor power-demand for the two options. The HYSYS compressor-effect value is used for further calculations in Chapter 6.

Case A: Useful and added effect for gas lift is defined in Chapter 6. Table 17 contains the input data for Figure 39. Case B Below follows a brief estimate of the gas lift efficiency when reducing the wellhead pressure for Case B to 5 bara.2 – Gas Lift calculations. Using an adiabatic compression efficiency of 85%. A Gas Lift performance plot for the modified Case B is shown in Figure 38.3. it is seen that the injected GLR (IGLR) representing the highest production flow rate is about 317.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. PROSPER is used to calculate tubing intake curves for different injected GLR values. This corresponds to a water production of about 2645 Sm3/d. where the gas stream is compressed from 5 to 130 bar. HYSYS was used. HYSYS calculated the effect required to compress 849 MSm3/d from 5 to 130 bar (Figure 41) to be 5215 kW. For review and demonstration of the manual calculation method.5 Sm3/d using an IGLR of 317 Sm3/ Sm3 (849 MSm3/d injected gas. Figure 39 shows the inflow/outflow –curves for the IGLR representing the highest water production (Figure 38). In comparison with Case B. June 2007 Appendix B.1 and 6. Referring to Figure 38.1 as: 136 . The maximum casing pressure is 130 bar. The overall efficiency of the Gas Lift is calculated as in Chapter 6. The gas composition from year 2015 (Table 11) was used for the compressor-effect calculations. The well produces at 2645. it is referred to Chapter 6. To calculate the compressor effect. shown in Figure 37. Tubing dimensions are the same as used in Case A.3. using PPO-valves which were found best suited for this Case. the data used in the below calculations differ in wellhead backpressure and the producing volume flow rate. Table 17). Figure 41 shows the separation and compression process. Figure 40 shows a suggested Gas Lift tubing design.

the data used in the below calculations differ in wellhead backpressure and the producing volume flow rate. Total Gas Lift efficiency for this case: Appendix B. Referring to Figure 42. PROSPER is used to calculate tubing intake curves for different injected GLR values. The static fluid pressure at the perforations without gas lift is 265 bar (no flow). shown in Figure 37. Production is 2645 Sm3/d (Table 17). using PPO-valves which were found best suited for this Case. while the flowing gradient is about 65 bar with gas lift (Highlighted in Table 17). 137 .3 – Gas Lift calculations. Case C Below follows a brief estimate of the gas lift efficiency when reducing the wellhead pressure for Case C to 5 bara. Hence. In comparison with Case C. Table 18 contains the input data for Figure 43. This gives a delta P equal to 200 bar. A Gas Lift performance plot for the modified Case C is shown in Figure 42. Figure 43 shows the inflow/outflow –curves for the IGLR representing the highest water production (Figure 42). The maximum casing pressure is 110 bar. The well produces at 1539 Sm3/d using an IGLR of 500 Sm3/ Sm3 (736 MSm3/d injected gas. Figure 44 shows a suggested Gas Lift tubing design. Tubing dimensions are the same as used in Case A. Table 18).Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. it is seen that the injected GLR (IGLR) representing the highest production flow rate is about 500. June 2007 Delta P is equal to the pressure at the perforations with no gas lift system minus the pressure at the perforations with a gas lift system. This corresponds to a water production of about 1539 Sm3/d.

Total Gas Lift efficiency for this case: 138 . The overall efficiency of the Gas Lift is calculated as in Chapter 6.1 and 6.4 bar with gas lift (Highlighted in Table 18). June 2007 To calculate the compressor effect. The gas composition from year 2020 (Table 11) was used for the compressor-effect calculations.3. The static fluid pressure at the perforations without gas lift is 265 bar (no flow). Production is 1539 Sm3/d (Table 18). HYSYS calculated the effect required to compress 736 MSm3/d from 5 to 110 bar (Figure 45) to be 4226 kW. Using an adiabatic compression efficiency of 85%. This gives a delta P equal to 220 bar. Case A: Useful and added effect for gas lift is defined in Chapter 6. while the flowing gradient is about 44.1 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. Figure 45 shows the separation and compression process. where the gas stream is compressed from 5 to 110 bar.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. HYSYS was used.3. it is referred to Chapter 6. Hence. For review and demonstration of the manual calculation method.

245 0. Pr Number of wells Following the 9 step procedure from Centrilift STEP 2 .Wc Gas-oil ratio Oil gravity Water gravity Water gradient Oil viscosity Oil gradient PI Reservoir Pressure.D Casing OD Casing ID.T Flowing bottomhole pressure.8 m 1035.124 0.and the GOR is as low as 20.d5 Tubing coupling OD. For the given production volume.Production capacity For the Inflow Performance Curve for Case A.071 bar/m 250 bar Hd Ft Hwh Hd Hd 471. 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 0.2667 0.995 20 843 1030 10300 0. 18.7 m H tubingleng th Hfluidlevel g H fluidlevel fluid Pwf Hfluidlevel Pwf fluid g Pfriction Ft Head required to exceed wellhead pressure.d2 Tubing Id. it is referred to Figure 9 (represented by line 4 in the plot) STEP 3 .127 2748 92 23000000 3000000 0. it is referred to the Baker Hughes website.Pwh Desired flowrate.Gas calculations As the producing volume of oil is very low compared to the water production.d1 Tubing OD.7 m (deltaPfriction retrieved from PROSPER) Pfriction Pwh fluid fluid g Ft Ft H wh 3396 ft fluid H wh 362.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.5 bbl/d 31446.Basic data Input Data Pump Setting depth.2 m g H wh Pfriction g Pwh g fluid 5000 Sm^3/d equals 31446.103 bar/m 0.5 bbl/d 62 ft It is referred to Figure 50 for the performance curves that represent the Centrilift ESP pump most suited for the production volume of From CENTRILIFTs range of pumps.d4 Length of tubing Bottomhole temperature.1397 0. the producing gas is neglected in these calculations STEP 4 .05787037 0.9 m 139 . June 2007 Appendix C – ESP Calculations Case A: Calculations for sizing the ESP Pump STEP 1 .Pump type Selecting the type of Pump The predetermined production volume of 16. 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 (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.00135 7100 250 25000000 1 230 bar 30 bar 5000 Sm3/d 0.Qi Water Cut .6 bar 200. Total Dynamic Head (TDH) STEP 5 .Pi Wellhead back pressure.

June 2007 140 .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.

9 m (deltaPfriction retrieved from PROSPER) Pfriction Pwh fluid fluid g Ft Ft H wh 7823 ft fluid H wh 362. Pr Number of wells Following the 9 step procedure from Centrilift (ref) STEP 2 . the head/stage (ft) is about This is the assumed optimal pump for this flow rate.Qi Water Cut . it is referred to Figure 9 (represented by line 1 in the plot) STEP 3 .245 0.d2 Tubing Id.Basic data Input Data Pump Setting depth. the HC27000 is selected. Total Dynamic Head (TDH) STEP 5 .D Casing OD Casing ID.9 bbl/d 23584.9 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.d5 Tubing coupling OD.4 m 141 .Gas calculations As the producing volume of oil is very low compared to the water production.071 bar/m 100 bar Hd Ft Hwh Hd Hd 1906. For the given production volume.2667 0. 24.Pump type Selecting the type of Pump The predetermined production volume of 9.T Flowing bottomhole pressure.103 bar/m 0.995 20 843 1030 10300 0.Production capacity For the Inflow Performance Curve for Case B.Pwh Desired flowrate.04340278 0.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.8 m 2384. For further information on the given pump and other pumps in the CENTRILIFT Pump Line.and the GOR is as low as 20.d4 Length of tubing Bottomhole temperature. the producing gas is neglected in these calculations STEP 4 .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. it is referred to the Baker Hughes website.4 m g H wh Pfriction g Pwh g fluid 3750 Sm^3/d equals 23584.5 bar 114. June 2007 Case B: Calculations for sizing the ESP Pump STEP 1 .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.124 0.127 2748 92 8500000 3000000 0.1397 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.Wc Gas-oil ratio Oil gravity Water gravity Water gradient Oil viscosity Oil gradient PI Reservoir Pressure.Pi Wellhead back pressure.00135 7100 250 10000000 10 85 bar 30 bar 3750 Sm3/d 0.

June 2007 142 .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.

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.Gas calculations As the producing volume of oil is very low compared to the water production.Qi Water Cut .103 bar/m 0.T Flowing bottomhole pressure.124 0. June 2007 Case C: Calculations for sizing the ESP Pump STEP 1 .Pi Wellhead back pressure.2 m H tubingleng th Hfluidlevel g Hfluidlevel fluid Pwf Hfluidlevel Pwf fluid g Pfriction Ft Head required to exceed wellhead pressure.3 bbl/d 82.D Casing OD Casing ID. 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.d2 Tubing Id. 25. the producing gas is neglected in these calculations STEP 4 .245 0.5 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.Pwh Desired flowrate. the head/stage (ft) is about This is the assumed optimal pump for this flow rate.d4 Length of tubing Bottomhole temperature.2667 0.6 m (deltaPfriction retrieved from PROSPER) Pfriction Pwh fluid fluid g Ft Ft H wh 8430 ft fluid H wh 362. Total Dynamic Head (TDH) STEP 5 . it is referred to Figure 9 (represented by line 0 in the plot) STEP 3 .1 m 143 . Pr Number of wells Following the 9 step procedure from Centrilift STEP 2 .d5 Tubing coupling OD.Pump type Selecting the type of Pump The predetermined production volume of 4.1397 0.d1 Tubing OD.995 20 843 1030 10300 0.8 m 2569.3 bbl/d 15723.Production capacity For the Inflow Performance Curve for Case A.and the GOR is as low as 20. For the given production volume. For further information on the given pump and other pumps in the CENTRILIFT Pump Line.02893519 0. the HC2000 is selected.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.127 2748 92 6000000 3000000 0.071 bar/m 70 bar Hd Ft Hwh Hd Hd 2154.Wc Gas-oil ratio Oil gravity Water gravity Water gradient Oil viscosity Oil gradient PI Reservoir Pressure.00135 7100 250 7000000 10 60 bar 30 bar 2500 Sm3/d 0.6 m g H wh Pfriction g Pwh g fluid 2500 Sm^3/d equals 15723.Basic data Input Data Pump Setting depth.35 bar 52. it is referred to the Baker Hughes website.

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. June 2007 144 .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful