Artificial Lift Screening and Selection

Artificial Lift Screening and Selection

Master Class

Andres Martingano

Artificial Lift 2013 – Praxis Interactive Technology Workshop

Agenda

• Introduction: The Need

• AL Selection Process Overview

• Some Common (and Less Common) Options

• Step 1: Screen

• Step 2: Evaluate• Step 2: Evaluate

• Step 3: Select

• Summary

Artificial Lift Screening and Selection9 Sep 2013

The Need: One approach

• Liquid production profile with initial natural flow period

70

100


“Delay AL ”

approach

-20

10

40

70

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Liq

uid

Ra

te

Time

Good Natural

Flow

Period

Complement

Reservoir

Energy

Provide

External

Energy

Increased need for energy to lift fluid

(depletion, WC increase)

70

100

The Need: A different approach

• Liquid production profile with AL inception on day 1

“Accelerate

-20

10

40

70

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Liq

uid

Ra

te

Time

Complement

Reservoir

Energy from Day 1

Late Introduction of

Artificial Lift


“Accelerate

production”

approach

The Need: Business!

• In technical terms, we are always doing the same thing:

– adding energy to the fluids in the wellbore to produce them to

the surface

• In terms of managing the reservoir and the production, the

approaches generally produce different resultsapproaches generally produce different results

– Field life

– Reserves

– Economics

AL screening and selection is more than a technical exercise,

IT’S BUSINESS!


Agenda




• Step 1: Screen


• Step 3: Select

• Summary


AL Selection

AL Selection as a Business Process

• What are the desirable characteristics in this process?

Unbiased Documented Repeatable Reliable

Incremental Improvements

Quality Assurance

9 Sep 2013 Artificial Lift Screening and Selection

AL Selection During the Life of the Asset

Exploration and

Appraisal

•Data gathering

•Well

performance

testing

Development

•FDP definition

•Completion

design

•Artificial lift

selection

Operation

•Monitor

performance

•Evaluate failures

•Re-design and re-

select equipment

if needed

Life Stages of an Asset

selection

•Well operation

philosophy

• Implementation

select equipment

if needed


Little data

•AL selection unimportant

Data for FDP

•Little constraints on selection and design

Operations Data

•Regular data acquisition

•Production

•Artificial lift KPIs

Artificial Lift Screening and Selection Progress

AL Selection Impact on Asset Value


VALUE

AL Selection Process

• Three-step process and tools used

• The process is essentially the same at the stage of FDP or field

operation, except that during operations:

• Designs can be optimized, but

• There can be less flexibility to adopt a different AL method

Attribute tables

LOF Design

Economics

and

Scorecards


1. Screen

2. Evaluate

3. Select

• There can be less flexibility to adopt a different AL method

AL Selection Process: Influence Diagram

Reservoir Data

Pressure and

Temperature

Permeability

Distribution

Productivity Damage

Drive

Mechanism

Net Pay

Distribution

Well Location

Onshore Offshore Platform

Subsea

Well Trajectory


Productivity Damage

through Completion

or Production

Well Reservoir-Face

Completion

Fluid Data

PVT properties

Viscosity

Corrosive

Conditions

Potential for organic

/ inorganic

depostions

Well Upper

Completion (casing

and tubing)

AL Method

Surface Facilities

Economics

AL Selection Process Overview

• The main points are

– In the planning phase

• AL selection and performance prediction has to provide feedback

into the FDP

• Improve concept selection and planning• Improve concept selection and planning

• Increase asset value

– In the operating phase

• Important decisions like surface facilities and well completions are

largely fixed

• Main scope could be reduced to optimization


Agenda




• Step 1: Screen


• Step 3: Select

• Summary


Widely Used ...

• GL

• ESP

• SRP

Even Less Used

• HSP

• ESPCP

• HDESP

Some AL Options

Less Used ...

• HPP

• JP

• SRP

• PCP

• PL

• HDESP

• Wellhead Ejectors


Advantages

• High degree of flexibility for design rates

• Very few moving parts

• Allows full-bore tubing access

Limitations

• May be uneconomical

for few wells

• Fluid viscosity

• Achievable BHP

GL: Typical Pros and Cons

access

• Minimal space requirements for surface equipment

• Multi-well production from single gas source

• Multiple or slimhole completion

• Achievable BHP

• Higher FTHP for same

liquid rate

• Limited gas injection

rate (depending on

orifice)

• Well integrity concerns


Image courtesy of Weatherford

GL: Some Options to Enhance The System

• Well integrity

– Dual valve side-pocket mandrels

– Metal to metal seal valves

– Use of corrosion-resistant materials (inconel)

– High-pressure injection valves

• Higher flexibility • Higher flexibility

– Surface-operated electric GLV

– Breaking-out gas device to improve stability

• Better rate control

– Venturi GLV

• Application to few wells or marginal fields

– Option to buy HP gas from external source


Advantages

• High rates and depth

• Good efficiencies at

Q>1000bpd

• Minor surface

Limitations

• Available electric power

• Casing size limits pump size

• Limited capacity to adapt to reservoir performance changes

ESP: Typical Pros and Cons

• Minor surface

equipment needs

• Good in deviated wells

• Can be used for well

testing

reservoir performance changes

• Difficult to repair in the field

• Free gas and solids handling

• Emulsions might be formed with high viscosity fluids and water

• Workover required to change



ESP: Some Options to Enhance The System

• Higher flexibility

– Use of VSDs

– Use of gas separators

• Lower costs

– Alternative ESP deployment (cable, CT, WRESP)– Alternative ESP deployment (cable, CT, WRESP)

– ESP dual systems

– Improved monitoring

• Use in Reduced wellbore sizes

– Application of permanent magnet materials to reduce motor

size, enabling through-tubing installation


Advantages

• Adaptable to a wide range of

well depths and deviations

• Good handling of entrained

gas and solids

Limitations

• Some require

specific bottom-hole

assemblies

• High-pressure

JP: Typical Pros and Cons

gas and solids

• No moving parts

• Can be circulated into and

out of operating position for

repairs

• Typical repairs (change

nozzle and throat or o-ring

seals) can be done on site

• High-pressure

surface line

requirements

• Lower horsepower

efficiency



JP: Some Options to Enhance the System

• Avoid water-handling challenges

– Use dead crude as a power fluid

• Economics

– JP inefficiency (higher CAPEX for power fluid requirements)

might be offset by lower OPEX through LOFmight be offset by lower OPEX through LOF


Advantages

• Adaptable to a wide range

of well depths and

deviations


Limitations

• Solids handling

• Requires specific

bottom-hole

assemblies

HPP: Typical Pros and Cons


out of operating position

for repairs

• Positive displacement

pump allows greater

drawdown

• Multi-well production from

single surface package

assemblies

• Medium rates

• Requires service

facilities

• Free gas

• Requires high-pressure

surface lines



Advantages

• High system efficiency

• Economical to repair and service

• Positive displacement pump allows high drawdown

Limitations

• Potential for tubing

and rod wear

• Limited gas-

handling capability

SRP: Typical Pros and Cons

Positive displacement pump allows high drawdown

• Upgraded materials can reduce corrosion concerns

• Can adapt to production changes through stroke length and speed changes

• High salvage value for surface and downhole equipment

handling capability

• Limited to ability of

rods to handle

loads

• Environmental

concerns

• Visual impact



SRP: Some Options to Enhance the System

• Enhance fluid handling capability

– Gas separators

• Reduce rod string wear

– Use centralizers

– Use COROD– Use COROD

• Minimize surface impact

– Different choice of surface units (e.g. LRP)


Advantages

• Low capital cost

• Low surface profile

• High system efficiency

• Simple installation, quiet

Limitations

• Limited depth

capability

• Temperature

• Sensitive to produced

PCP: Typical Pros and Cons

• Simple installation, quiet

operation

• Pumps liquids with solids

• Low power consumption

• Portable surface equipment

• Low maintenance costs

• Use in directional /

horizontal wells

• Sensitive to produced

fluids

• Low volumetric

efficiencies in high-

GOR wells

• Potential for tubing

and rod coupling wear



PCP: Some Options to Enhance the System

• Temperature and Fluids Sensitivity

– Alternative elastomers

– Metal stator PCPs

• Challenging well conditions with sand or gas

– Use charge pumps– Use charge pumps


Advantages

• Uses the well’s energy

• Dewatering gas wells

• Rig not required for

installation

Limitations

• Low potential rates

• Poor solids handling

• Greater effort to

optimize

PL: Typical Pros and Cons

installation

• Easy maintenance

• Keeps well cleaned of

paraffin deposits

• Handles gassy wells

• Good in deviated wells

• Can produce to depletion

optimize



Other Systems

• Hydraulic Submersible Pump (HSP)

• Electrical Submersible PCP (ESPCP)

• Hydraulic Diaphragm ESP (HDESP)

• Wellhead Ejectors (Surface Jet Pumps)

• ... and others...• ... and others...


AL Options: The Message

• Do not narrow down options too much at an early stage

– There are more things to consider than the ‘typical’ scenarios

for AL system application

– New technologies and developments can enhance the

applicability and performance of AL systems for different applicability and performance of AL systems for different

scenarios

– There are less commonly used AL systems which could work for

your asset

– Use industry experience to assess track record (papers, case

studies, colleagues)


Agenda




• Step 1: Screen


• Step 3: Select

• Summary


AL Selection: Screen Phase

• Qualitative comparison – eliminate unsuitable technologies

• Charts and attribute tables might be used

Attribute tables1. Screen

• Attribute tables are preferred, and should be customized for the development in question


LOF Design

Economics

and

Scorecards

2. Evaluate

3. Select

Screening Common Options: ‘Quick-look’

Charts For High Rates

• Screening of High Rate Applications

25,000

30,000

35,000

AL Applicability Based on Rate and Depth

GL

ESP

JP


0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000

Liq

uid

Ra

te (

bp

d)

Lift Depth (ft TVD)


Charts For Low Rates

• Screening of Low Rate Applications

3,500

4,000

4,500

AL Applicability Based on Rate and Depth

HPP

SRP

PCP


0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000

Liq

uid

Ra

te (

bp

d)

Lift Depth (ft TVD)

PL


Attribute Table

Sucker Rod Pump

(SRP)

Progressive Cavity

Pump

(PCP)

Gas Lift

(GL)

Plunger Lift

(PL)

Hydraulic Piston

Pump

(HPP)

Jet Pump

(JP)

Electric

Submersible Pump

(ESP)

Operating depth (ft TVD)100 -

16,000

2,000 -

6,000

5,000 -

15,000

8,000 -

19,000

7,500 -

17,000

5,000 -

15,000

1,000 -

15,000

Typical operating rate (bpd)5 -

5,000

5 -

4,500

200 -

30,000

1 -

5

50 -

4,000

300 -

15,000

200 -

30,000

Operating temperature (°F)100 -

550

75 -

250

100 -

400

120 -

500

100 -

500

100 -

500

100 -

400

• Typical vendor-provided screening table


Operating temperature (°F)550 250 400 500 500 500 400

Corrosion handlingGood to

ExcellentFair

Good to

ExcellentExcellent Good Excellent Good

Gas handlingFair to

GoodGood Excellent Excellent Fair Good

Poor to

Fair

Solids handlingFair to

GoodExcellent Good

Poor to

FairPoor Good

Poor to

Fair

Fluid gravity (°API) > 8 < 35 > 15GLR = 300 scf/bbl

/1000ft depth> 8 > 8 > 10

ServicingWorkover or

Pulling rig

Workover or

Pulling rig

Wireline or

Workover rig

Wellhead Catcher

or Wireline

Hydraulic or

Wireline

Hydraulic or

Wireline

Workover or

Pulling Rig

Prime moverGas or

Electric

Gas or

ElectricCompressor Reservoir energy

Multicylinder or

Electric

Multicylinder or

ElectricElectric Motor

Offshore application Limited Good Excellent N/A Good Excellent Excellent

Overall system efficiency (%)45 -

60

45 -

70

10 -

30N/A

45 -

55

10 -

30

35 -

60

Use of Tables and Charts

• ‘Standard’ screening charts and tables

– Good for a ‘quick-look’ screening

– Generally more useful to discard a few options than to pick a few

– May be limited in the options included

– May ignore extended applicability of particular systems using – May ignore extended applicability of particular systems using

materials or accessories not provided by them

– May not provide a full picture in terms of factors that can work against

the applicability of systems under specific conditions

– Ignore economics considerations

– Ignore people-related considerations

– Experts in specific systems can find ways to ‘push the envelope’

• A customized attributes table can overcome these limitations


Building a Better Attributes Table


Uptime

Surface Facilities

Factors

Well Factors

Start-up from Shutdown

Possibility of Expansion

Gas Availability

Power Availability

Location

Capacity Constraints

Remote

Offshore

Onshore


HSE Factors

Budget-Related

Factors

Vendor-Related

Factors

Staff-Related

Factors

Artificial Lift

Screening

Attributes

Reservoir

Management

Factors

Fluid Properties

Flow Assurance

Factors

Production

Factors Through

Field Life System Efficiency

Start-up from Shutdown



• Possibly, not all

the attributes are

important for a

given case

• Refine...


• Refine...


• Attribute Scoring � Keep it simple

• Promote transparency

– No more than ‘good option’, ‘average option’, and ‘poor option’

(or ‘1’, ‘2’, and ‘3’ scores or similar)

– Define the options– Define the options

• ‘good’ = applicable, works, no problem

• ‘average’ = may be applicable, requires further analysis

• ‘poor’ = not recommended, known issues, not applicable



ALS # 1 ALS # 2 ... ALS # n

Attribute # 1

Attribute # 2

Attribute # 3

• Typical presentation (easily implemented in a spreadsheet)

Attribute # 3

...

Attribute # n


• Is documented

• Includes all important attributes

• Considers inputs from other disciplines

Agenda




• Step 1: Screen


• Step 3: Select

• Summary


AL Selection: Evaluate Phase

• Quantitative analysis – find conditions for AL systems operation

• Design systems to operate in the field


• Provide feedback to wells and facilities design

• Assess performance of the system under changing conditions

• Generate estimates for economics


LOF Design

Economics

and

Scorecards

2. Evaluate

3. Select


Formation-Face

Operating Envelope

• Realistic inflow potential

• Well issues, related to mechanical integrity and flow assurance. E.g.

Design AL for LOF

Conditions

• Different scenarios

• Early-life

• Middle-life

• Late-life

• Assess suitability for changing conditions

Outputs

• Budget requirements

• CAPEX

• OPEX

• Production profiles

assurance. E.g. Erosion produced by sand and fines at high rates, formation collapse, tubular collapse, scale / asphaltene deposition

• Reservoir issues, e.g. gas or water coning, or problems producing below Pbp

changing conditions

• Provide feedback

• Well design

• Facilities design



• Formation-Face Operating Envelope – an example

BHPVLP to be achieved

P Min

imu

m r

ate

or

sta

ble

op

era

tio

n


Qliq

Pbp

Pformation integrity

Qmin Qmax

Pres initial

Pres abandon Minimum allowable BHP

Min

imu

m r

ate

for

sta

ble

op

era

tio

n


• Design AL for LOF Conditions

Expected

Production

Profiles

•GOR vs. Cumulative

•WC vs. Cumulative

•Reservoir Pressure vs. Cumulative

•Early Life


Define

Scenarios

•Early Life

•Middle Life

•Late Life

Design AL

for each

Scenario

•Determine power required to lift target rate

•Assess feasible target rate

•Design system

•Test design against uncertainty in production conditions and improve it

Generate

Outputs

•Feedback for well and facilities design

•Well performance for production profile forecast

•OPEX and CAPEX requirements, bearing in mind MTBF and production deferment


• DON’Ts:

– Create a single design for worst conditions: that is good as a

feasibility check but not to understand LOF requirements

– Ignore production losses / deferment due to equipment failure

• DO’s:• DO’s:

– Compare methods using a single formation-face operating

envelope

– Discuss options and requirement with other disciplines before

estimating budget needs


Agenda




• Step 1: Screen


• Step 3: Select

• Summary


AL Selection: Select Phase

• Quantitative analysis – economics

• Evaluate NPV of using different systems


• Understand where value is generated and lost

• Optimize design


LOF Design

Economics

and

Scorecards

2. Evaluate

3. Select


• Build cash flows for different alternatives and calculate NPV

– CAPEX (surface and well equipment)

+ Production

– Operating costs (energy. personnel, normal maintenance)

– Downtime deferred / lost production (due to failure)– Downtime deferred / lost production (due to failure)

– Intervention costs

– Equipment replacement

– Abandonment costs

+ Salvage value



• Compare NPVs

40

50

60

70

NP

V (

MM

$)

Value Comparison

• Don’t stop here!


0

10

20

30

40

ALS #1 ALS #2 ALS #3

NP

V (

MM

$)


• Understand where value is gained or lost

100

120

140

160

NP

V (

MM

$)


0

20

40

60

80

100

NP

V (

MM

$)


• Understand the prize for improving different areas

20

25

30

35

40

NP

V (

MM

$)


0

5

10

15

20

NP

V (

MM

$)

CAPEX

Interventions

OPEX

Production Losses

Replace Equipment

Abandonment


• Maximize option NPV

– CAPEX

• Phase investment

– Interventions and production losses

• Have rig available on the field full time• Have rig available on the field full time

• Design equipment to extend MTBF

– OPEX

• Analyze expenditures and identify opportunities for savings


Refine options Refine budget Select and AL Contracting and


Refine options

for design and

implementation

Refine budget

requirements

Select and AL

system

Contracting and

Procurement


Agenda




• Step 1: Screen


• Step 3: Select

• Summary


Summary

• Overall Process

– AL screening and selection is a process that needs to be clearly defined and documented for quality assurance

– Most value can be created or lost at the design phase

– Multidisciplinary collaboration is required for optimized solutions

• Screening

– Attributes for screening can be defined based on project needs– Attributes for screening can be defined based on project needs

– Scoring should be simple and documented to promote transparency

• Evaluation

– Formation-face operating envelope needs to be defined

– Design scenarios have to be considered for early, mid, and late life

– Test designs for suitability under uncertain scenario conditions

• Selection

– Calculate NPV

– Understand where value is gained or lost


Artificial Lift Screening and Selection

Engineering

Transcript of Artificial Lift Screening and Selection