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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Boge et al. of which 68 GSm3 have already been exported. June 2007 With the current drainage strategy. produced gas has been used for pressure maintenance. created as a result of gas injection. secondary gas caps. It is referred to Figure 10 for an illustration of the depressurization process. Injection of water and gas is planned to be stopped in 2007.2. gas will be released from the remaining oil. Active depressurization is not planned for the Dunlin reservoir. The current recovery factor of oil is about 65%. 2005) 3. The gas will then migrate towards the crest. In addition to export. presented in Chapter 3.. Most of this gas is currently trapped in the water flooded zone due to large amounts of water injected through production history. operation of the field is expected to become marginal around 2010. and the ultimate recovery is expected to be about 68%. the additional revenue from gas exports allows for extension of the production period until 20182020. Gas production from the Statfjord Formation will primarily be from existing. This conversion requires depressurization of the reservoir to release the incremental solution gas from the residual oil. This gas will expand and become mobile as reservoir pressure drops. From the Figure it can be seen that as reservoir pressure falls below bubble point pressure. fuel and flare. the sales gas reserves are 74 GSm3. phased on each platform according to the planned shutdowns in 2007. By implementation of the new drainage strategy. will require an extensive pressure reduction in both the Brent Group and the Statfjord Formation.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. With the current oil profile. as it has very limited potential. Without change in drainage strategy. The change in drainage and production strategy. from where it will be produced. 9 . gas export was expected to end late 2007. from pressure maintenance to depressurization.2 Presentation of the planned re-development of Statfjord The new production strategy is to convert the Statfjord field from mainly producing oil to mainly produce gas.

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

The base-case data used for calculations in this thesis are extracted from this plot.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. 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. 11 .

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

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

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

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

1 (10. K n . is in the Tulsa model set to 0. performing a multiple linear least squares regression on the logarithms of the variables R. the right side of the equation simplifies to the constant 0.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. This value was estimated in the Tulsa thesis from optimization based on high pressure data. equivalent to GOR in a gas-oil system. The equation for K td was developed using regression analysis. as AWR=0.04. the importance of the loss parameters is obvious. In the above expression of N. June 2007 N B (1 K td )C .33 ( AWR ) 0.88 * 10 3 )( R p ) 2. respectively. The nozzle loss parameter. respectively. For single-phase flow. The analysis was done by a computer program.63 R 0. The expression is presented as: K td 0. (1 K n ) B (1 K td )C (6) where K n and K td are the dimensionless pressure-loss coefficients for the nozzle and throatdiffuser.33 (7) where R is the ratio of the nozzle to throat area. R p and AWR (Air-Water-Ratio).1. 16 . K td is a combination of the loss parameter for the throat K t and the diffuser K d . R p is the ratio of the discharge pressure to the power fluid pressure and AWR is the air-water ratio.

J.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.1 Main factors to control pump performance For a pump with a given nozzle/throat relation. P. one of the main factors to control the Jet Pump performance is the injection rate of the power fluid. 5. Due to this fact. manufacturers of Jet Pumps have made a wide range of nozzles and throats available (Figure 15).. as long as the pump physically fits in the tubing and the casing-tubing annulus is large enough to conduct the total returning fluid flow. The nozzle/throat combination defines the degree of pump optimization and performance. Figure 14 shows performance curves for different injection pressures. the pressure of the injected power fluid can be varied. 2006) by the author of this thesis.2. keeping the injection flow rate constant. at fixed injection pressure.2 Jet Pump sizing Dimensioning a jet pump is an important part of a jet pump installation process. Following is a description of these two important elements of Jet Pump sizing. Tubing size has little or no influence on the Jet Pump performance. the injection pressure is also an important factor when considering Jet Pump performance. Also. leads to higher pump discharge pressure and therefore higher production flow rate. For further description of factors to control pump performance. The nozzle/throat relation and its influence on pump performance are discussed in the following Chapter. especially when producing free gas. where the 17 . another consideration is that a minimum area of throat annulus is required to avoid cavitation. As illustrated in Figure 13.2. an increase in the injection flow rate.2 Jet Pump performance 5. June 2007 5. 1988) and Chapter 4 of the earlier mentioned project (Pedersen. it is referred to the thesis “Performance model for hydraulic jet pumping of two phase fluids” (Jiao. As shown. 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.

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

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

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

Overall Jet Pump efficiency: The total required input effect for all 10 wells are: 4006 kW x 10 = 40. Appendix A). The discharge pressure is calculated to be 324 bar (step 16 in the Case B calculations. Pump intake pressure is 85 bar (step 23).Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Case A: NTNU. Appendix A). Delta P for the given production is ~ 96 bar. Case B calculations gave a hydraulic efficiency of 27.1 % and a topside power requirement on 1820 kW.4 % and a topside power requirement on 4006 kW per well. As for Case A. using Equation (1) and (2). Pump intake pressure is 230 bar (step 23). Case B: Referring to Appendix A.06 MW 21 . the efficiency calculation method introduced in Chapter 4 is also applied. Overall Jet Pump efficiency: The results are further discussed in the next Chapter. Delta P for the given production is ~ 239 bar. June 2007 The calculations in Appendix A for Case A gave a hydraulic efficiency of 33. The discharge pressure is calculated to be 326 bar (step 16 in the Case A calculations.

As for Case A and B. The discharge pressure is calculated to be 326 bar (step 16 in the Case C calculations.9% for hydraulic and overall efficiency.4 Evaluation of results Intuitively. The combined hydraulic efficiency of the Jet Pump and surface Power Fluid Pump was. 22 . In the calculations from the previous Chapter.77 MW Results further discussed in next Chapter. this is proven to be correct. For Case B. using Equation (1) and (2).Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.5%. 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. for all three cases. Delta P for the given production is ~ 266 bar. calculating a hydraulic efficiency on 33. Appendix A). June 2007 Results further discussed in next Chapter.5%. calculating 27. the efficiency calculation method introduced in Chapter 4 is also applied.6% for Case A. Overall Jet Pump efficiency: The total required input effect for all 10 wells are: 3177 kW x 10 = 31. The difference between hydraulic efficiency and overall efficiency is 2. Case C: Case C calculations gave a hydraulic efficiency of 28.8 % and a topside power requirement on 3177 kW per well. higher than for the overall efficiency.1% and an overall efficiency on 30. 5.4% and 25. the difference is 1. Pump intake pressure is 60 bar (step 23).

and finally Figure 20 represents Case C. the calculated difference between the two efficiency measures is 4. none of the nozzle/throat combinations found in PROSPER were equal to the ones selected in Chapter 5. For Case C. The hydraulic efficiency is 28. the pump discharge pressure curve is represented by the black line. Figure 18 represents Case A for Jet Pump. Referring to the above mentioned Figures. one well flowing at 2500 Sm3/d. The closest values to the nozzle/throat configuration used here were selected in PROSPER.6%.2%. Comparing the hydraulic efficiency calculations for Jet Pump (Appendix A) with the typical Jet Pump hydraulic efficiency range presented in Chapter 2.2 (Figure 1). This indicates that the calculations and results for the Jet Pump option should be fairly reasonable. Unfortunately. it is seen that the results for all three cases falls within the expected efficiency range.3. one well flowing at 3750 Sm3/d. Figure 19 represents Case B for Jet Pump. 23 .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. The relatively large difference for Case C is probably due to a fairly high friction pressure loss in the power fluid tubing. June 2007 respectively.8% while the overall efficiency is 24. which affects the overall efficiency. B and C. PROSPER was used to generate performance curves for the cases using Jet Pump. while the blue line is the IPR curve and the red line represents the tubing intake pressure curve. and some variables were adjusted so that the performance curves should represent the Jet Pump calculations for Case A. one well flowing at 5000 Sm3/d.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and the two gas lift designs are illustrated in Figure 33 (IPO) and Figure 34 (PPO). June 2007 6. For Case A: The gas composition for the lift-gas is given in Table 11. For the IPO option. Maximum available volume flow rate of lift-gas per well is 200 MSm3/d.9’’ ID and 7. As highlighted in the previous Chapter. The injection pressure is kept fixed at 180 bar. and maximum casing pressure (lift-gas pressure at wellhead) is set to 180 bar.11 bar. Two different designs are presented.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. but requires less number of mandrels and valves.1.76 MSm3/d. as seen in Figure 34.3 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). shown in Figure 33. while the required volume flow rate of lift-gas is calculated to be 188. and the tubing-size considered optimal was 6. The Figure shows that this option gives shallower injection depth. the PPO option gives deeper injection but more mandrels and valves required. (Statoil ASA) As pointed out in Chapter 6. according to the drawdown plan presented in Figure 11. in accordance with the design methods and parameters presented in Chapter 6.2.2. One using IPO valves and one using PPO valves. 33 . the volume flow rate of lift-gas required is 196. Table 11).0 MSm3/d and the required casing pressure is 171. A gas lift string design was performed using PROSPER. The input parameters and selections are presented in Table 12 and 13 respectively. and the envelope for the gas is plotted in Figure 32 (based on the values for year 2009.2. Calculations were conducted for various tubing sizes. the size of the production tubing affects the gas lift performance significantly.625’’ OD.

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

wellhead pressure in Case B was set to 5 bara and calculations were performed. The Figure shows one well on Gas Lift producing at 5000 Sm3/d. This plot is based on the same tubing size as used for Case A and maximum gas injection depth (2748 m). For Case B: A plot was prepared in PROSPER (Figure 37). PROSPER input values are enclosed as Table 16. gas gravity and delta P across valve. The steeper the curve. 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). Gas Lift is not a feasible lift method for Case B. 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. the higher the friction pressure loss. according to the above mentioned Figure.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. 35 . Clearly. First and foremost. which results in lower production flow rate. showing the tubing performance curves for different values of injected GLR. which corresponds to an injected GasLiquid Ratio of about 1000. A production rate of about 1600 Sm3/d is reached when injecting 1600 MSm3/d. casing pressure. 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). Calculations are found as Appendix B. it is seen that the tubing performance curves representing the higher injected GLR is steeper than the ones representing the lower injected GLR.7% for the given conditions. June 2007 Inflow and tubing performance curves for the Gas lift Case A is shown in Figure 36. The calculations for the modified Case B show an overall Gas Lift efficiency of 11.2. Referring to Figure 37. injected GLR. but should nevertheless show an efficiency trend for the Gas Lift system. As illustrated in Figure 37. These values are valve depths. this Case (Figure 37: upper inflow line. reservoir pressure 100 bara) requires an unreasonably high injected GLR to produce.

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

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

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

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

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

Collection of good data covering these conditions prior to sizing a submersible installation is essential to proper sizing. Figure 27.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. June 2007 7. To optimise pump performance. Changes in the wellhead back pressure will also be of less consequence for the ESP performance compared to the Gas Lift. 41 . This is seen in Figure 47.2.2 ESP performance 7. for instance. just like other methods of artificial lift. as the total pressure gain over the pump will enhance. This is illustrated in Figure 49. while other factors have little or no influence on the pump performance. is not an exact science and involves a number of factors. As opposed to Gas Lift.1 Main factors to control pump performance As for the other artificial lift methods. Number of pump stages will affect the pump performance significantly. there are some main factors which affect the ESP performance significantly. the above mentioned factors and several others. the tubing size has little influence on ESP performance. As illustrated in Figure 48. the production flow rate will increase considerably with increasing number of stages. 7. Another factor that influences the performance of the ESP is the pump operating frequency. production history and reservoir conditions are very important. where the production flow rate increases with increase in the operating frequency. where the curve for the pump discharge pressure is quite steep compared to the IPR curve for the Gas Lift seen in. Detailed information on well completion.2. have to be taken into consideration when sizing the ESP system. The procedure varies considerable with well conditions or fluids to be pumped.2 ESP sizing The sizing of a submersible pumping installation. as long as the pump physically fits in the tubing. The operating frequency is proportional to the pump impellers RPM.

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

Figure 57 one ESP lifted well flowing at 3750 Sm3/d and Figure 58 one well flowing at 2500 Sm3/d.5% for Case A to 25. while for Case B and C. As illustrated in Figure 59. as indicated in the Jet Pump calculations and in Chapter 5. Keeping this in mind. it is argued and illustrated in Appendix C that the assumptions made should be fairly accurate Calculations performed by PROSPER gave results close to the ones presented here.3 are surprisingly similar. As seen in Figure 56.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.6% for Case A to 43. As earlier emphasized.7% for Case B and C.2% for Case B and C respectively. they seem reasonable.4 Evaluation of results Comparing the above results with the typical ESP hydraulic efficiencies presented in Chapter 2. except for Case A.2 (Figure 1). which is used for the ESP calculations. Figure 57 and Figure 58. as it was not possible to gather information about a few specific parts. For Gas Lift. it seems like the hydraulic efficiency is a few percent higher than the overall efficiency.9% and 24. Jet Pump has reported overall efficiencies on 30. They all fall into the expected efficiency range. the calculation results for ESP are considered to be reasonable. the overall efficiency for Case A was 66%. This is further explained below the calculations for Case A. the results from the PROSPER calculations and the manual calculations in Chapter 7. efficiency was not attainable. 45 . However. PROSPER provides ESP options with pump characteristics very close to the pumps chosen in this thesis. where the pump chosen is not optimal for the Case. the accuracy of these assumptions must be taken into consideration when evaluating the efficiency and power-requirement results. Also.4. Plots of overall efficiency and power requirement for the three Artificial Lift systems are presented as Figure 59 and Figure 60. June 2007 7. By using the same ESP input values in PROSPER as calculated here. varying from 37. ESP is the artificial lift system with the highest overall efficiency for the three Cases. Figure 56 shows one ESP lifted well flowing at 5000 Sm3/d. Some assumptions had to be made regarding the ESP equipment characteristics. performance curves with flow rates for the three cases were generated.

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

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

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

as well as an overview of the discounted production costs per year. The ESP overall efficiency has been assumed linearly increasing from year 0 to year 5. The overall efficiency for the whole depressurization period is 51 .1 million NOK per well per year. B and C calculations from Chapter 5 and 7.5 million NOK per well per year. which is about 9.3 Opex estimates using ESP One of the largest uncertainties regarding the operational expenses for ESP is the lifetime of the pumps. The well intervention frequency is based on an ESP lifetime of 18 months. As a retrieval of the ESP pump requires a full well intervention and pulling of the tubing. this is not a technically feasible Artificial Lift solution for the depressurization process. The Table contains NPV Opex. According to available information from the operator. The excel spreadsheet for the ESP Opex calculations is found as Table 26. a well intervention will cost about 20 million NOK per well. Pump discharge pressure is assumed linearly decreasing from 300 bara in year 0 to 285 bara in year 10. or an average of 13. and steady at 43. The Opex calculations for both Jet Pump and ESP are plotted together with the belonging artificial lift efficiencies in Figure 63.7% from year 5-10.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. 9. 9. One should be aware of that overall efficiency reported in this plot is the expected overall efficiency trend based on Case A. as well as an overview of the discounted production costs per year.2 Opex estimates using Gas Lift As shown earlier in the thesis. Economical estimations for Gas Lift will therefore not be conducted. June 2007 NPV Opex for the Jet Pump solution were calculated to be about 948 million NOK (Table 25). the pump lifetime is vital to the economical estimates for the Artificial Lift method. Table 25 contains the NPV Opex. the NPV Opex is about 1311 million NOK. For the ESP solution.

Using ESP. It is referred to Figure 66 for the total discounted costs for the 10 year project. ESP is a very expensive alternative. The Figures plot total costs versus time. from a financial point of view.1 billion NOK. its accuracy can be discussed. dominated by well intervention costs. where the Capex and Opex values for each year are reported. and although it gives a good indication for the efficiencytrend. is considerably higher than the Jet Pump Opex. The Figure shows that the ESP Opex. 52 . The total time distributed costs for the ESP and Jet Pump can be found in Figure 64 and Figure 65. Figure 62 shows the Opex distribution for ESP. the Jet Pump should be selected as the artificial water-lift system on Statfjord. Hence. Due to the high frequency well interventions and pump replacement. the total discounted costs for 10 years estimates to about 2.1 billion NOK. Figure 63 illustrates average overall artificial lift efficiency vs. respectively. The Figure illustrates the costs distribution both as percentage shares of total ESP Opex and as shares of total ESP Opex in million NOK. Opex for ESP and Jet Pump. even though the Jet Pump is significantly less energy efficient. For the Jet Pump the price is estimated to 1. June 2007 interpolated between three points. where the dominance of well intervention costs is evident.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.

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

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

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

the most energy efficient artificial lift alternative. the reservoir pressure is estimated to decline very fast in the early phase of the depressurization project. for one well producing at a relatively high reservoir pressure. For this. Despite the fact that it is proven the most energy efficient lift system.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. water is too dense and the friction pressure loss in the production tubing. middle and late project phase. respectively. NPV Opex for ESP is estimated to about 1300 million NOK. Although this lift method achieves a very high overall power efficiency. 40 MW for 10 wells in the middle phase and 31. caused by a high volume of injected gas. Conclusion ESP. respectively. each case representing the depressurization phase at an early.1 MW for one well. the power requirements for Jet Pumping are 1. resulting in a high 56 . too high. 66%. independent of the injected gas volume.8 MW for 10 wells in the late phase. Gas Lift and Jet Pump are evaluated as petroleum production techniques for water lift. This is mainly due to the high number of required costly well interventions. for three different cases. June 2007 11. by far. Calculations for the assumed optimal design are carried out for all three artificial lift methods. Calculation results show that ESP has the highest overall efficiency for the larger part of the depressurization period. ESP Opex is calculated to be considerably higher than Opex for the Jet Pump. Jet Pump overall efficiency ranges from 31% to 26% and 24% for the early. which is a consequence of short expected lifetime of the ESPs. This is mainly due to the short expected ESP lifetime.4 MW and 14. while Jet Pump NPV Opex is estimated to about 950 million NOK. The required topside electrical power input ranges from 1. Gas Lift is found to be an unsuitable artificial lift method for pumping of deep water at low reservoir pressures.8 MW for one well in the early phase. to 20.9 MW for 10 wells at an early. Compared to the Jet Pump. middle and late stage. For comparison. preventing the Gas lifted wells to produce the required water flow rates. ESP is estimated to be. middle and late stage. the ESP is also proved to be a very expensive alternative in regards to Capex. ranging from 38% at an early stage to 44% at a middle and late stage.

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

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

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

Qi Water Cut .Pi Wellhead back pressure.D Casing OD Casing ID.995 20 843 10300 0.Pwh Desired flowrate.d1 Bottomhole temperature.Pwh Desired flowrate.d1 Bottomhole temperature.T Flowing bottomhole pressure.043402778 0.245 92 23000000 3000000 0.245 92 8500000 3000000 0.Wc Gas-oil ratio Oil gravity Water gradient Oil viscosity Oil gradient PI Unit m m m °C Pa Pa Sm^3/s Sm^3/Sm^3 kg/sm^3 Pa/m Pas Pa/m Sm^3/d/bar Value 2748 0.T Flowing bottomhole pressure.2667 0.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.Qi Water Cut .2667 0.05787037 0.Pi Wellhead back pressure.00135 7100 250 Table 2: Well data for Case B (Statoil ASA) Input Data Pump Setting depth.D Casing OD Casing ID.995 20 843 10300 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 0.00135 7100 250 60 . June 2007 Tables Table 1: Well data for Case A (Statoil ASA) Input Data Pump Setting depth.

d1 Bottomhole temperature. Case A. June 2007 Table 4: Data table for the return annular liquid flow. setting the return conduit to “casing-tubing annulus”.00135 7100 250 NTNU. This is calculated by PROSPER.Wc Gas-oil ratio Oil gravity Water gradient Oil viscosity Oil gradient PI Unit m m m °C Pa Pa Sm^3/s Sm^3/Sm^3 kg/sm^3 Pa/m Pas Pa/m Sm^3/d/bar Value 2748 0.T Flowing bottomhole pressure.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Table 3: Well data for Case C (Statoil ASA) Input Data Pump Setting depth. Highlighted are the return liquid flow rate (step 11. Chapter 5.245 92 6000000 3000000 0.D Casing OD Casing ID.028935185 0.Pwh Desired flowrate.Qi Water Cut . 61 .995 20 843 10300 0.Pi Wellhead back pressure.3) and the corresponding friction pressure loss.2667 0.

Case C.3) and the corresponding friction pressure loss. Table 6: Data table for the return annular liquid flow.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. This is calculated by PROSPER. 62 . Chapter 5.3) and the corresponding friction pressure loss. Highlighted are the return liquid flow rate (step 11. Chapter 5. June 2007 Table 5: Data table for the return annular liquid flow. setting the return conduit to “casing-tubing annulus”. setting the return conduit to “casing-tubing annulus”. This is calculated by PROSPER. Case B. Highlighted are the return liquid flow rate (step 11.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 .

30 6. MMNOK Total discounted investment costs.6 Table 23: CAPEX Estimate – ESP.3 2015 10 6 90 67.8 2012 10 6 100 89.87 8.00 2017 10 4 20.00 2016 10 4 20.00 2011 8 4 20. June 2007 Table 22: CAPEX Estimate – Jet Pump.47 14. MMNOK Discounted investment costs.Brent Group (Statfjord Field) Year Total # wells at end of year # New Pumps Total pump equipment price.00 20. MMNOK 2010 4 4 20.4 74 . MMNOK 2010 4 4 80 80.84 7.6 2017 10 6 90 59.84 11.9 2018 10 6 90 56.5 2019 10 8 120 71.27 11.00 2013 10 4 20.00 2012 10 2 10.10 years.8 2014 10 6 90 71.00 2018 10 2 10.10 years.4 792. CAPEX Estimate for Jet Pump Solution .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Table 21: Data Chart for Figure ESP Case C NTNU.0 2013 10 8 120 100.90 16. CAPEX Estimate for ESP Solution .0 2020 10 1 15 8.00 18.00 2014 10 4 20.3 2016 10 8 120 84.10 13.Brent Group (Statfjord Field) Year Total # wells at end of year # New Pumps Total pump equipment price.0 2011 8 6 110 103.00 2020 10 4 20.79 15.00 2015 10 2 10.00 2019 10 4 20.17 144. MMNOK Discounted investment costs. MMNOK Total discounted investment costs.

948 75 .147 kg/s Fuel gas density 0.6 160000 88748936. kW Total input effect = Total useful effect / efficiency.6 28.5 135 118 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.Brent Group (Statfjord Field) Year Average # wells through year Average Reservoir pressure.6 21448. availability ok Table 25: OPEX Estimate – Jet Pump OPEX Estimate for Jet Pump Solution .7 399799.5 24.5 2800 65904. Nox cost 40 NOK/kg CO2 faktor 2. CO2 cost 0.0021 kgNOx/Sm3 NOx factor SAC 0.2 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.4 % Spare engine available.84 NOK/litre Spec.5 37224.9 25.2 325 325 325 325 325 325 325 325 325 325 325 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.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Table 24: Production cost of electrical power at Statfjord (Statoil ASA).6 3722. MMNOK Estimated well intervention costs / year. MMNOK 2010 2.5 NOK/Sm3 Spec.412 83630. bara Average flowing bottomhole pressure.5 2800 NTNU.434 0.7 0.7 26. MMNOK Discounted total production costs / year.17 555 69386.7456 kg/m3 Gassens brennverdi 47940 kJ/kg Turbinens heat rate 9900 kJ/kW*hr NOx factor DLE 0. % Average expected pump discharge pressure.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. MMNOK Total production costs / year.5 170 158 30206 2012 9.499 0. Sm^3/d Average expected Artificial Lift efficiency. fuel gas cost 0. Diesel cost 4 NOK/litre Spec. Production cost of electrical power : NOK/kW DLE SAC kNOK/Year kNOK/Year 22157. CO2 cost 0.9 24. bara Average total production.5 0 0 37224.7 2. bara △ Total useful effect = Q_production × P.6 25.7 27. cost (NOK/kWh) 22157.84 NOK/Sm3 Spec.686 m3CO2/Sm3 Fuel gas consumtion@20 MW 1.523 Assumptions Spec.8 25.5 29.10 years.5 228 223 12190 2011 6. kW Average power costs / year.

June 2007 Table 26: OPEX Estimate – ESP OPEX Estimate for ESP Solution . Sm^3/d Average expected Artificial Lift efficiency.7 60 25000 43.3 94 40000 42.7 76 35000 43. 1311 76 . MMNOK Total production costs / year. bara △ Total useful effect = Q_production × P.6 158 30206 38. % Average expected pump discharge pressure.0 103 42500 41.5 135 2013 10 120 2014 10 110 2015 10 100 2016 10 90 2017 10 85 2018 10 80 2019 10 75 2020 10 70 223 12190 37.7 300 298 296 295 293 291 290 289 287 286 285 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. bara Average total production.8 118 42478 40.7 72 32500 43. kW Total input effect = Total useful effect / efficiency.5 85 37500 43. kW Average power costs / year. MMNOK 2010 2.5 170 2012 9.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.7 64 27500 43.5 228 2011 6.Brent Group (Statfjord Field) Year Average # wells through year Average Reservoir pressure.10 years. MMNOK # Well interventions / year Estimated well intervention costs / year. bara Average flowing bottomhole pressure. MMNOK Discounted total production costs / year.7 68 30000 43.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

00 4=250.00 1=100.00 3=200.0 (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.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves . (PROSPER generated) 86 .0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.48 Perm eability No Relative Predicting Pressure and Tem perature (offshore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Reservoir Pres sure 250. June 2007 Variables 1:Reservoir Pressure (BARa) 1 2 0=70.00 2=150.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord Well Eksem pel Analyst BFS Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Figure 12: Water Producer on natural lift at various reservoir pressures.95 0.Water Producer on Natural Lift 320 4 3 2 1 0 NTNU.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Intersection Dis Allow Reservoir Tem perature 92.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.00 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 30.000 (percent) Com pletion Cased Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.

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 .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 (d eg C) Fie ld Statfjord JET Pum p Te s t .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 14: Jet performance using different power fluid injection pressures.00 3=600 .00 (BARa ) Inflow Type Single Bran ch Flu id Oil Water Cu t 0.An nula r Pro duction Ve rtical Lift Corre la tio n Petroleum Exp erts 2 Relative Perm eab ility No Pre dictin g Pre s s u re a nd Tem perature (offs ho re) Te mp erature Mo del Roug h App ro xima tio n Solutio n No de Bottom Node Res e rvoir Pres s ure 0.322 R 0.084 At 0.084 At 0.0 (d eg C) Fie ld Statfjord JET Pum p Te s t . (PROSPER generated) 87 .0 1=100 0. June 2007 Va riab les 3:Jet Pum p Inje ction Rate (Sm 3/da y) 1 2 3 0=500 .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.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 2=400 . PDP = Pump Discharge Pressure.0 (m ) Grave l Pa ck No Well Type Pro ducer Bottom True Vertical Depth27 48.00 4=800 .No zzle (1 5) Throat (3 ) An 0.00 0 (p erce nt) 10 Com pletion Cas e d Ho le Flo w Typ e An nula r Bottom Meas ure d De pth27 48.00 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. (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 . PDP = Pump Discharge Pressure.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves 60 0 IPR Curve VL P Curve PDP NTNU.0 50 0 Pressure (BARa) 40 0 30 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 20 0 0 20 00 40 00 2 1 0 80 00 60 00 Liq uid Ra te (Sm 3/da y) PVT Meth od Black Oil To p No de Pres s ure 30 .322 R 0.No zzle (1 5) Throat (3 ) An 0.00 1=200 .00 (BARa ) 25 Com pan y Statoil Le ft-Ha nd Inte rs e ctio n Dis Allow Res e rvoir Tem pe ra tu re 92 .0 (m ) Grave l Pa ck No Well Type Pro ducer Bottom True Vertical Depth27 48.00 (BARa ) 25 Com pan y Statoil Le ft-Ha nd Inte rs e ctio n Dis Allow Res e rvoir Tem pe ra tu re 92 .00 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 .

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

Petrie.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord JET Pum p Tes t . F. June 2007 Figure 17: Pressure history of produced fluid as it enters and travels through the jet pump.L.C.Nozzle (15) Throat (3) An 0.322 R 0. H. PDP = Pump Discharge Pressure. Cavitation occurs where the throat pressure is drawn below the produced fluids vapour pressure (Christ.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Inters ection Dis Allow Res ervoir Tem perature 92. (PROSPER generated) 89 .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 250.262 Well Eks em pel Analys t BFS Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Figure 18: Jet Pump performance curves.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. 1989) Inflow v Outflow Curves .000 (percent) Com pletion Cas ed Hole Flow Type Annular Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.0 (m ) Gas Coning No Artificial Lift Jet Pum p Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill Res ervoir Model PI Entry Lift Type Tubing Injection .084 At 0.1 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.

0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.Nozzle (15) Throat (3) An 0.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Intersection Dis Allow Reservoir Tem perature 92.(PROSPER generated) 90 .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 100.322 R 0.084 At 0.262 Well Eksem pel Analyst BFS Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Figure 19: Jet Pump performance curves. PDP = Pump Discharge Pressure.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.000 (percent) Com pletion Cased Hole Flow Type Annular Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord JET Pum p Test .0 (m ) Gas Coning No Artificial Lift Jet Pum p Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill Reservoir Model PI Entry Lift Type Tubing Injection . June 2007 Inflow v Outflow Curves .

PDP = Pump Discharge Pressure.Nozzle (17) Throat (4) An 0.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves .000 (percent) Com pletion Cased Hole Flow Type Annular Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.210 Well Eksem pel Analyst BFS Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Figure 20: Jet Pump performance curves.(PROSPER generated) 91 .1 well flowing @ 2500 Sm^3/d 400 IPR Curve VLP Curve PDP NTNU.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord JET Pum p Test .628 R 0.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Intersection Dis Allow Reservoir Tem perature 92. 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.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 70.0 (m ) Gas Coning No Artificial Lift Jet Pum p Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill Reservoir Model PI Entry Lift Type Tubing Injection .

00 2000.00 4000.0 5.00 Figure 22: Nozzle/Throat selection for Case B. [%] 20.00 6000. Hydraulic Efficiency vs. [HP] 8000. Case A 40 35 16E 30 25 Nozzle 16 Nozzle 17 Hydraulic Efficiency. Power Requirement 35.0 0. 92 . Power Requirement. June 2007 Hydraulic Efficiency vs.0 Nozzle 16 Hydraulic Efficiency.0 Nozzle 17 Nozzle 18 Nozzle 19 15.0 30.00 Power. [%] Nozzle 18 20 Nozzle 19 Nozzle 20 15 10 5 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Power. [HP] 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 Figure 21: Nozzle/Throat selection for Case A.00 12000.0 16E 25.00 10000.0 Nozzle 20 10.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.0 0.

power requirement 35.00 Power.0 30.00 14000.0 0.0 Nozzle 19 Nozzle 20 10.00 10000.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.0 0.0 Nozzle 17 Nozzle 18 15.0 5. [%] 20.0 19B 25.00 4000. 93 .00 Figure 23: Nozzle/Throat selection for Case C.0 Nozzle 16 Hydraulic Efficiency.00 6000.00 2000. [HP] 8000.00 12000. June 2007 Hydraulic Efficiency vs.

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

95 0. (PROSPER generated) 95 .00 3 240 2 1 2 1 0 Pressure (BARa) 0 160 80 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Liquid Rate (Sm 3/day) PVT Method Black Oil Top Node Press ure 30.0 (m ) Gas Coning No Artificial Lift Gas Lift Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill Reservoir Model PI Entry Lift Type Friction Los s In Annulus Vertical Lift Correlation Beggs and Brill 0.00 1=225.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Intersection Dis Allow Reservoir Tem perature 92. June 2007 Variables 1:Reservoir Pressure (BARa) 1 2 0=200.0 (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.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves 320 NTNU.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.000 (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 2=250.

0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Intersection Dis Allow Reservoir Tem perature 92.00 2=6.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves 400 NTNU.000 (percent) Com pletion Cased Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.0 (m ) Gas Coning No Artificial Lift Gas Lift Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill Reservoir Model PI Entry Lift Type Friction Los s In Annulus Vertical Lift Correlation Beggs and Brill 0.00 1=4.48 Perm eability No Relative Predicting Pressure and Tem perature (offshore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Reservoir Pres sure 250.00 3=8. June 2007 Variables 3:Tubing/Pipe Diameter (inches ) 1 2 1 3 0=2.00 300 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. (PROSPER generated) 96 .0 (deg C) Field Statfjord Well Eksem pel Analyst BFS Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Figure 26: Illustration of gas-lift performance at various tubing sizes.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.95 0.

00 1=10. 97 .0 (m ) Com pletion Cas ed Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Res ervoir Tem perature 92.00 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 100.0 (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. June 2007 Variables 1:Firs t Node Pres s ure (BARa) 1 2 0=5.00 3=20.00 5=30.00 4=25.95 0.48 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.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves 320 NTNU.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Gas Coning No Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill Artificial Lift Gas Lift Vertical Lift Correlation Beggs and Brill 0.000 (percent) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.00 2=15. (PROSPER generated) Figure 28: Example of a Gas Lift performance curve.

000 (percent) Com pletion Cased Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth2748. (www. to the right the Fluid Valve (PPO). To the left. June 2007 Variables 3:Casing Pressure (BARa) 1 2 1 0 3 0=50.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.00 3=200. (PROSPER generated) Figure 30: Two different valve-concepts.00 240 3 2 1 0 2 3 Pressure (BARa) 160 80 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Liquid Rate (Sm 3/day) PVT Method Black Oil Top Node Press ure 30.0 (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.00 2=150.95 0.net) 98 .0 (m ) Gas Coning No Artificial Lift Gas Lift Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill Reservoir Model PI Entry Lift Type Friction Los s In Annulus Vertical Lift Correlation Beggs and Brill 0.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves 320 NTNU.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Intersection Dis Allow Reservoir Tem perature 92.00 1=100.valve-world.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.48 Perm eability No Relative Predicting Pressure and Tem perature (offshore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Reservoir Pres sure 250. the pressure valve (IPO).

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

0 (m) Water Cut 100.447 (bar) Desi gn Rate Method Entered By User Desi gn Li qui d Rate5000.95 0.052 (1000Sm3/d) 1 ACTUAL Inj ecti on Pressure171.5 (Sm3/day) ACTUAL Oil Rate 0 (Sm3/day) ACTUAL Gas Injection Rate 96. based on input parameters presented in Table 12 (IPO Valves).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 250.48 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 00.000 (1000Sm3/d) 2 Fl owi ng Top Node Pressure 30.00 (BARa) Reservoi r Temperature 92.5 (Sm3/day) Check Rate Conformance With IPR Yes Dome Pressure Correction Above 1200psi g No Inj ection Poi nt Inj ection Poi nt i s ORIFICE Val ve Setti ng Fi rst Valve PVo = Gas Pressure Tubing Correl ation Beggs and Bri ll 0.00 (percent) Safety For Closure Of Last Unloadi ng Val ve 2.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Temperature (deg C) NTNU.4.000 (bar) Maximum Depth Of Inj ecti on2748.00 (BARa) Desi red dP Across Valve 1.000 (1000Sm3/d) 2 Maximum Gas Duri ng Unl oading00.00 (BARa) Unl oading Top Node Pressure 30.0 (Sm3/Sm3) ACTUAL Liqui d Rate5000.000 (bar) Total GOR 20.000 (percent) Mi nimum Spaci ng 76. (PROSPER generated) 100 .0 (deg C) Figure 33: Gas lift design for Case A. 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 3.00 (BARa) Operati ng Injection Pressure180.00 (BARa) Ki ck-Off Inj ecti on Pressure180.103 (bar/m) Mi nimum Transfer dP 25.2 (m) Static Gradi ent Of Load Fl uid 0. Chapter 6.

000 (1000Sm3/d) 2 Flowing Top Node Pressure 30.00 (BARa) Reservoir Temperature 92.00 (percent) Design Rate Method Entered By User Design Liquid Rate5000.5 (Sm3/day) Check Rate Conformance With IPR Yes Dome Pressure Correction Above 1200psig No Injection Point Injection Point is ORIFICE Tubing Correlation Beggs and Brill 0. (HYSYS generated) 101 .00 (BARa) 700 True Vertical Depth (m) 1400 Valve 2100 Valve Valve Valve Orifice 2800 0 60 120 180 240 Pressure (BARa) PVT Method Black Oil Pressure Fluid Oil Temperature Flow Type Tubing Operating Gas Gradient Well Type Producer Unloading Gradient Artificial Lift Gas Lift Minimum Pressure Lift Type Friction Loss In Annulus P Min Predicting Pressure and Temperature (offshore) P Max Temperature Model Rough Approximation Casing dP At Valve Company Statoil Field Statfjord Well Eksempel Analyst BFS Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Inflow Type Single Branch Completion Cased Hole Gravel Pack No Gas Coning No Reservoir Model PI Entry Relative Permeability No Reservoir Pressure 250.000 (bar) Total GOR 20.00 (BARa) Unloading Top Node Pressure 30.00 (BARa) Operating Injection Pressure180.00 (BARa) Desired dP Across Valve 1.00 (BARa) Kick-Off Injection Pressure180.000 (percent) Minimum Spacing 76.0 (Sm3/Sm3) ACTUAL Liquid Rate5000.4.5 (Sm3/day) ACTUAL Oil Rate 0 (Sm3/day) ACTUAL Gas Injection Rate 88.000 (bar) Maximum Depth Of Injection2748. (PROSPER generated) Figure 35: Flow chart for the lift-gas compression process.000 (1000Sm3/d) 2 Maximum Gas During Unloading00.760 (1000Sm3/d) 1 ACTUAL Injection Pressure180. June 2007 0 0 30 60 90 120 GASLIFT DESIGN (NEW WELL) REPORT Valve Type Tubing Sensitive Percent Pcasing-Pwh 30.103 (bar/m) Minimum Transfer dP 25.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Temperature (deg C) (Eksempel 08 May 07 13:15) NTNU.2 (m) Static Gradient Of Load Fluid 0.00 (percent) Safety For Closure Of Last Unloading Valve 2.0 (m) Water Cut 100.48 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. Chapter 6.95 0.0 (deg C) Figure 34: Gas lift design for Case A. based on input parameters presented in Table 13 (PPO Valves).

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

000 (percent) Com pletion Cased Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.0 (m ) Gas Coning No Artificial Lift Gas Lift Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill Reservoir Model PI Entry Lift Type Friction Los s In Annulus Vertical Lift Correlation Beggs and Brill 0.0 3=300. (PROSPER generated).00 0=50.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.48 Perm eability No Relative Predicting Pressure and Tem perature (offshore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Reservoir Pres sure 70. June 2007 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=70.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Intersection Dis Allow Reservoir Tem perature 92. E= Erosional Velocity Limit Exceeded (high dP friction for the marked flowrates).95 0.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord Well Eksem pel Analyst BFS Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Figure 37: Gas Lift Performance curves for different values of injected GLR.00 1=100.Case B & C 320 NTNU.0 6=600.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.0 7=1000.0 4=400.0 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 5=500.0 2=200.0 1=100. 103 . Case B and C (Reservoir pressure at 100 and 70 bara).Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves .

0 (d eg C) Figure 38: Gas Lift Performance Chart for Appendix B.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.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Gas Lift Performance Curve 28 00 NTNU.000 (percent) Com pletion Cas ed Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.0 (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. 104 .0 (m ) 27 48.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 5.2 (PROSPER generated).2.0 (m ) Inflow Type Com pletion Grave l Pa ck Gas Conin g Single Bran ch Cas e d Ho le No No Beg gs an d Brill Beg gs an d Brill 0.48 Res e rvoir Mo del PI Entry 1 Xma s Tree 0 (m ) Relative Perm eab ility No 3 Tubing 274 8. (PROSPER generated) Inflow v Outflow Curves .0 ) (m Res e rvoir Pres s ure 0.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Inters ection Dis Allow Res ervoir Tem perature 92.00 (BARa ) 10 Res e rvoir Tem pe ra tu re 92 . 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 48.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.0 (m ) Gas Coning No Artificial Lift Gas Lift Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill Res ervoir Model PI Entry Lift Type Friction Los s In Annulus Vertical Lift Correlation Beggs and Brill 0.95 0.95 0.

00 (BARa) 700 True Vertical Depth (m) Val ve 1400 Val ve 2100 2800 Orifi ce 0 40 80 120 160 Pressure (BARa) PVT Method Bl ack Oil Pressure Fl ui d Oi l Temperature Fl ow Type Tubing Operati ng Gas Gradi ent Wel l Type Producer Unl oading Gradient Arti ficial Li ft Gas Lift Mi nimum Pressure Li ft Type Fri ction Loss In Annulus P Min Predi cti ng Pressure and Temperature (offshore) P Max Temperature Model Rough Approximati on Casi ng dP At Val ve Company Statoi l Fi el d Statfj ord Wel l Eksempel Analyst BFS Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Inflow Type Si ngl e Branch Completi on Cased Hol e Gravel Pack No Gas Coni ng No Reservoi r Model PI Entry Rel ati ve Permeabi l ity No Reservoi r Pressure 100.205 (1000Sm3/d) ACTUAL Inj ecti on Pressure 130.00 (BARa) Reservoi r Temperature 92.3 (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.00 (BARa) Operati ng Injection Pressure 130.000 (bar) Total GOR 20. June 2007 0 0 30 60 90 120 GASLIFT DESIGN (NEW WELL) REPORT Val ve Type Tubing Sensitive Percent Pcasi ng-Pwh 30. Appendix B.95 0.000 (1000Sm3/d) Maximum Gas Duri ng Unl oading 1200.0 (Sm3/Sm3) ACTUAL Liqui d Rate 2645.00 (percent) Safety For Closure Of Last Unloadi ng Val ve 2.103 (bar/m) Mi nimum Transfer dP 25.3 (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 0.2.000 (percent) 1 Mi nimum Spaci ng 76.2 (m) Static Gradi ent Of Load Fl uid 0.000 (bar) Maximum Depth Of Inj ecti on 2748.0 (deg C) Figure 40: Gas lift design for Appendix B.0 (m) Water Cut 00.00 (BARa) Desi red dP Across Valve 1. (HYSYS generated) 105 . based on input parameters presented in Table 17 (PPO Valves).2.00 (percent) Desi gn Rate Method Entered By User Desi gn Li qui d Rate 2645.000 (1000Sm3/d) Fl owi ng Top Node Pressure 5.00 (BARa) Unl oading Top Node Pressure 5.00 (BARa) Ki ck-Off Inj ecti on Pressure 130. (PROSPER generated) Figure 41: Flow chart for the lift-gas compression process.48 Pi pe Correlati on Beggs and Bri ll Use IPR For Unl oading Yes Orifi ce Si zi ng Method Cal culated dP At Ori fice Val ve Manufacturer McMurry-Macco Val ve Type RF-2 Val ve Speci ficati on Normal Maximum Gas Avai lable 1200.

00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.48 Perm eability No Relative Predicting Pressure and Tem perature (offshore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Reservoir Pres sure 70.0 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 5.95 0.95 0.48 Reservoir Model PI Entry 1 Xmas Tree 0 ) (m Relative Perm eability No 3 Tubing 2748.0 (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 0.0 ) (m Reservoir Pres sure 70.0 (m ) Com pletion Cased Hole 2748.Modified Case C 240 Variables 2:GLR Injected (Sm 3/Sm 3) 1 2 0=500. 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. (PROSPER generated) Inflow v Outflow Curves .000 (percent) Com pletion Cased Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.3 (PROSPER generated).Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Gas Lift Performance Plot 1540 NTNU.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Intersection Dis Allow Reservoir Tem perature 92.00 (BARa) Reservoir Tem perature 92.3.0 (deg C) Figure 42: Gas Lift Performance Chart for Appendix B.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Beggs and Brill Gas Coning No Beggs and Brill 0. 106 .0 (deg C) Field Statfjord Well Eksem pel Analyst BFS Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Figure 43: Inflow/outflow curves for Appendix B.

00 (percent) Safety For Closure Of Last Unloading Valve 2. Appendix B.000 (bar) Total GOR 20.00 (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. (PROSPER generated) Figure 45: Flow chart for the lift-gas compression process.3.000 (percent) Minimum Spacing 76.0 (deg C) Figure 44: Gas lift design for Appendix B.00 (BARa) Desired dP Across Valve 1.95 0.000 (1000Sm3/d) 9 Maximum Gas During Unloading00.000 (1000Sm3/d) 9 Flowing Top Node Pressure 5.00 (BARa) Kick-Off 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 70.000 (bar) Maximum Depth Of Injection2748.0 (Sm3/Sm3) ACTUAL Liquid Rate1539.00 (BARa) Unloading Top Node Pressure 5. based on input parameters presented in Table 18 (PPO Valves). (HYSYS generated) 107 .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Temperature (deg C) NTNU.716 (1000Sm3/d) 7 ACTUAL Injection Pressure110.00 (BARa) Reservoir Temperature 92.0 (m) Water Cut 100.00 (BARa) Operating Injection Pressure110. June 2007 0 0 30 60 90 120 GASLIFT DESIGN (NEW WELL) REPORT Valve Type Tubing Sensitive Percent Pcasing-Pwh 30.103 (bar/m) Minimum Transfer dP 25.2 (Sm3/day) ACTUAL Oil Rate 0 (Sm3/day) ACTUAL Gas Injection Rate 36.3.2 (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.

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

00 0 (p erce nt) 10 Inflow Type Single Bran ch Flu id Oil Bottom Meas ure d De pth27 48.0 (d eg C) ESP Pum p ESP . June 2007 Va riab les 1:Firs t No de Pres s ure (BARa) 1 2 0=5.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord ESP Pum p ESP .00 (BARa ) 25 Com pan y Statoil Res e rvoir Tem pe ra tu re 92 .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 0.00 1=10.00 2=60.0 0 3=20.TN1050C Well Eks em pel ESP Motor Analys t BFS ESP Cable #1 Copper Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Figure 48: ESP performance with different # pump stages.95 0.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 0 2=15.00 3=80.0 0 5=30.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.0 (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. (PROSPER generated) 109 .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves 40 0 IPR Curve VL P Curve PDP NTNU.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 0.000 (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=20.0 (m ) Com pletion Cas e d Ho le Flo w Typ e Tu bing Bottom True Vertical Depth27 48. (PROSPER generated).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 30.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Inters ection Dis Allow Res ervoir Tem perature 92.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.0 (m ) Gas Coning No Artificial Lift Electrical Subm ers ible Pum p Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill Res ervoir Model PI Entry Lift Type Vertical Lift Correlation Beggs and Brill 0.0 0 4=25.00 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.

00 3=60.TN1050C Well Eks em pel ESP Motor Analys t BFS ESP Cable #1 Copper Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Figure 49: ESP performance at various operating frequencies.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Inters ection Dis Allow Res ervoir Tem perature 92.95 0.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord ESP Pum p ESP .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves 490 IPR Curve VLP Curve PDP NTNU.48 Perm eability No Relative Predicting Pres s ure and Tem perature (offs hore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Res ervoir Pres s ure 250. June 2007 Variables 1:Operating Frequency (Hertz) 1 2 0=30.0 (m ) Gas Coning No Artificial Lift Electrical Subm ers ible Pum p Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill Res ervoir Model PI Entry Lift Type Vertical Lift Correlation Beggs and Brill 0.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.000 (percent) Com pletion Cas ed Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth2748. (PROSPER generated) 110 .00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.00 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 1=40.00 2=50.

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

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

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

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

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

95 0.1 well flowing @ 5000 Sm^3/d 400 IPR Curve VLP Curve PDP NTNU.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord ESP Pum p ESP . PDP = Pump Discharge Pressure. June 2007 350 Pressure (BARa) 300 250 200 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Liquid Rate (Sm 3/day) PVT Method Black Oil Top Node Press ure 30.48 Perm eability No Relative Predicting Pressure and Tem perature (offshore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Reservoir Pres sure 250.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.TN1050C Well Eksem pel ESP Motor Analyst BFS ESP Cable #1 Copper Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Figure 56: ESP .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.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves .performance curves.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Intersection Dis Allow Reservoir Tem perature 92.(PROSPER generated) 116 .

00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.1 well flowing @ 3750 Sm^3/d 800 IPR Curve VLP Curve PDP NTNU.000 (percent) Com pletion Cased Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth 0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth 0 (m ) Gas Coning No Artificial Lift Electrical Subm ersible Pum p Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill Reservoir Model PI Entry Lift Type Vertical Lift Correlation Beggs and Brill 0. 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 30.48 Perm eability No Relative Predicting Pressure and Tem perature (offshore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Reservoir Pres sure 100.95 0.IA600 Well Eksem pel ESP Motor Analyst BFS ESP Cable #1 Copper Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Figure 57: ESP .performance curves.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Intersection Dis Allow Reservoir Tem perature 92.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves .0 (deg C) Field Statfjord ESP Pum p CENTRILIFT .(PROSPER generated) 117 . PDP = Pump Discharge Pressure.

00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100. for ESP.(PROSPER generated) Figure 59: Artificial Lift efficiency based on Case A. GL and Jet Pump.000 (percent) Com pletion Cased Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth2748. 118 .0 (deg C) Field Statfjord ESP Pum p CENTRILIFT .HC19000 Well Eksem pel ESP Motor Analyst BFS ESP Cable #1 Copper Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Figure 58: ESP .performance curves. PDP = Pump Discharge Pressure.48 Perm eability No Relative Predicting Pressure and Tem perature (offshore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Reservoir Pres sure 70.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Inflow v Outflow Curves .1 well flowing @ 2500 Sm^3/d 440 IPR Curve VLP Curve PDP NTNU. B and C. 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 30.0 (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 0.95 0.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Intersection Dis Allow Reservoir Tem perature 92.

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 2007 125 .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.

June 2007 126 .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.

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

June 2007 128 .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. June 2007 129 .

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

June 2007 131 .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.

June 2007 132 .Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. June 2007 133 .

at the given inlet pressure and temperature. 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 11.8722 k = 1. Case A Calculations for compressor effect.1 – Gas Lift calculations. where the inlet pressure for the topside liftgas compressor is equal to the flowing wellhead pressure (30 bara). To reduce required compressor effect. respectively.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. Table 14 and 15 contains values for the PPO and IPOoptions. Case A: From the real gas law we have: . where (18) Adiabatic compression work.4 134 . June 2007 Appendix B. For the PPO-option we have: Z(@30bar/20°C) = 0. the gas-stream is run through a cooler before reaching the compressor. year 2009). equation (9): Inserting equation 18 into equation 9 yields: (19) The gas lift system is considered a closed system.

8722 k = 1.3. HYSYS calculations for the IPO-alternative gave a compressor effect on 531. The results show that the manual calculations presented here are fairly accurate. we get: Hence. even though the above calculations show very little deviation in compressor power-demand for the two options. we get the compression effect by using equation (10): Inserting an assumed compressor-efficiency on 85%. the IPO-option is chosen for further calculations. 135 . we get: For the IPO-option we have: Z(@30bar/20°C) = 0. The HYSYS-flow chart for the process is shown as Figure 35. June 2007 Based on the adiabatic compression work.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.5 kW.4 Inserting an assumed compressor-efficiency on 85%. The HYSYS compressor-effect value is used for further calculations in Chapter 6.

the data used in the below calculations differ in wellhead backpressure and the producing volume flow rate. The well produces at 2645. The gas composition from year 2015 (Table 11) was used for the compressor-effect calculations. it is referred to Chapter 6.3. June 2007 Appendix B.5 Sm3/d using an IGLR of 317 Sm3/ Sm3 (849 MSm3/d injected gas. where the gas stream is compressed from 5 to 130 bar. Figure 41 shows the separation and compression process. Case B Below follows a brief estimate of the gas lift efficiency when reducing the wellhead pressure for Case B to 5 bara. For review and demonstration of the manual calculation method. HYSYS was used. using PPO-valves which were found best suited for this Case. Case A: Useful and added effect for gas lift is defined in Chapter 6. shown in Figure 37. Figure 40 shows a suggested Gas Lift tubing design.2 – Gas Lift calculations. it is seen that the injected GLR (IGLR) representing the highest production flow rate is about 317.3. The overall efficiency of the Gas Lift is calculated as in Chapter 6. PROSPER is used to calculate tubing intake curves for different injected GLR values. In comparison with Case B. This corresponds to a water production of about 2645 Sm3/d. Table 17 contains the input data for Figure 39.1 as: 136 . Table 17). Referring to Figure 38. Using an adiabatic compression efficiency of 85%. HYSYS calculated the effect required to compress 849 MSm3/d from 5 to 130 bar (Figure 41) to be 5215 kW.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. Figure 39 shows the inflow/outflow –curves for the IGLR representing the highest water production (Figure 38). The maximum casing pressure is 130 bar. A Gas Lift performance plot for the modified Case B is shown in Figure 38. Tubing dimensions are the same as used in Case A.1 and 6. To calculate the compressor effect.

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

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

Pr Number of wells Following the 9 step procedure from Centrilift STEP 2 .Total dynamic Head TDH (Total Dynamic Head) = Hd + Ft + Hwh Total dynamic head delivered by the pump when pumping the desired volume Vertical distance between wellhead and the estimated producing fluid level at the expected capacity the head required to overcome friction loss in tubing.1397 0. For the given production volume.8 m 1035.2 m g H wh Pfriction g Pwh g fluid 5000 Sm^3/d equals 31446. it is referred to Figure 9 (represented by line 4 in the plot) STEP 3 .00135 7100 250 25000000 1 230 bar 30 bar 5000 Sm3/d 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.T Flowing bottomhole pressure. the head/stage (ft) is about For further information on the given pump and other pumps in the CENTRILIFT Pump Line .Wc Gas-oil ratio Oil gravity Water gravity Water gradient Oil viscosity Oil gradient PI Reservoir Pressure.245 0.124 0. 18. June 2007 Appendix C – ESP Calculations Case A: Calculations for sizing the ESP Pump STEP 1 .Qi Water Cut .103 bar/m 0.7 m H tubingleng th Hfluidlevel g H fluidlevel fluid Pwf Hfluidlevel Pwf fluid g Pfriction Ft Head required to exceed wellhead pressure.and the GOR is as low as 20.Pi Wellhead back pressure.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. it is referred to the Baker Hughes website.D Casing OD Casing ID.9 m 139 .Pump type Selecting the type of Pump The predetermined production volume of 16.Production capacity For the Inflow Performance Curve for Case A.d1 Tubing OD.d4 Length of tubing Bottomhole temperature.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.127 2748 92 23000000 3000000 0.Gas calculations As the producing volume of oil is very low compared to the water production.Pwh Desired flowrate. the HC27000 is selected.071 bar/m 250 bar Hd Ft Hwh Hd Hd 471.2667 0.Basic data Input Data Pump Setting depth.5 bbl/d 31446.995 20 843 1030 10300 0.7 m (deltaPfriction retrieved from PROSPER) Pfriction Pwh fluid fluid g Ft Ft H wh 3396 ft fluid H wh 362. the producing gas is neglected in these calculations STEP 4 .d2 Tubing Id.d5 Tubing coupling OD. Total Dynamic Head (TDH) STEP 5 .6 bar 200.05787037 0.

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. June 2007 140 .

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. 24.8 m 2384. it is referred to the Baker Hughes website.124 0.1397 0. it is referred to Figure 9 (represented by line 1 in the plot) STEP 3 . the HC27000 is selected.d2 Tubing Id.00135 7100 250 10000000 10 85 bar 30 bar 3750 Sm3/d 0.4 m 141 .d1 Tubing OD.Wc Gas-oil ratio Oil gravity Water gravity Water gradient Oil viscosity Oil gradient PI Reservoir Pressure.245 0.103 bar/m 0.d4 Length of tubing Bottomhole temperature. For the given production volume.Pump type Selecting the type of Pump The predetermined production volume of 9.Production capacity For the Inflow Performance Curve for Case B.Basic data Input Data Pump Setting depth.d5 Tubing coupling OD.4 m g H wh Pfriction g Pwh g fluid 3750 Sm^3/d equals 23584.04340278 0. Pr Number of wells Following the 9 step procedure from Centrilift (ref) STEP 2 .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.Pwh Desired flowrate.and the GOR is as low as 20.995 20 843 1030 10300 0.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.9 bbl/d 23584.5 bar 114.Qi Water Cut .Pi Wellhead back pressure.T Flowing bottomhole pressure.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. the producing gas is neglected in these calculations STEP 4 . the head/stage (ft) is about This is the assumed optimal pump for this flow rate.8 m H tubingleng th Hfluidlevel g Hfluidlevel fluid Pwf Hfluidlevel Pwf fluid g Pfriction Ft Head required to exceed wellhead pressure. For further information on the given pump and other pumps in the CENTRILIFT Pump Line.071 bar/m 100 bar Hd Ft Hwh Hd Hd 1906.9 m (deltaPfriction retrieved from PROSPER) Pfriction Pwh fluid fluid g Ft Ft H wh 7823 ft fluid H wh 362. Total Dynamic Head (TDH) STEP 5 .127 2748 92 8500000 3000000 0.2667 0.Gas calculations As the producing volume of oil is very low compared to the water production. June 2007 Case B: Calculations for sizing the ESP Pump STEP 1 .

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. June 2007 142 .

103 bar/m 0.d4 Length of tubing Bottomhole temperature. the HC2000 is selected.Basic data Input Data Pump Setting depth.Gas calculations As the producing volume of oil is very low compared to the water production.2667 0.d2 Tubing Id.D Casing OD Casing ID.1397 0. the head/stage (ft) is about This is the assumed optimal pump for this flow rate.Wc Gas-oil ratio Oil gravity Water gravity Water gradient Oil viscosity Oil gradient PI Reservoir Pressure.35 bar 52.d1 Tubing OD.T Flowing bottomhole pressure.00135 7100 250 7000000 10 60 bar 30 bar 2500 Sm3/d 0.8 m 2569. the producing gas is neglected in these calculations STEP 4 .6 m g H wh Pfriction g Pwh g fluid 2500 Sm^3/d equals 15723.5 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. 25. Total Dynamic Head (TDH) STEP 5 . it is referred to Figure 9 (represented by line 0 in the plot) STEP 3 .Qi Water Cut .127 2748 92 6000000 3000000 0.3 bbl/d 82.Production capacity For the Inflow Performance Curve for Case A.071 bar/m 70 bar Hd Ft Hwh Hd Hd 2154. June 2007 Case C: Calculations for sizing the ESP Pump STEP 1 . 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.Pwh Desired flowrate.Pi Wellhead back pressure. For further information on the given pump and other pumps in the CENTRILIFT Pump Line.1 m 143 .124 0. it is referred to the Baker Hughes website.d5 Tubing coupling OD.6 m (deltaPfriction retrieved from PROSPER) Pfriction Pwh fluid fluid g Ft Ft H wh 8430 ft fluid H wh 362.Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU.995 20 843 1030 10300 0.Total dynamic Head TDH (Total Dynamic Head) = Hd + Ft + Hwh Total dynamic head delivered by the pump when pumping the desired volume Vertical distance between wellhead and the estimated producing fluid level at the expected capacity the head required to overcome friction loss in tubing. Pr Number of wells Following the 9 step procedure from Centrilift STEP 2 . For the given production volume.245 0.2 m H tubingleng th Hfluidlevel g Hfluidlevel fluid Pwf Hfluidlevel Pwf fluid g Pfriction Ft Head required to exceed wellhead pressure.Pump type Selecting the type of Pump The predetermined production volume of 4.3 bbl/d 15723.and the GOR is as low as 20.02893519 0.

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord NTNU. June 2007 144 .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful