eni s.p.a. upstream & technical services · PDF file · 2014-10-21Sucker rod...

eni s.p.a.upstream & technical services

2013-2014 Master in Petroleum Engineering and Operations

Author: Alessandro Luciani

San Donato Milanese 13-14-15 October 2014

Sucker Rod Pumping Systems

Beam Pumping Unit vs Long Stroke

eni s.p.a. upstream & technical

services2San Donato Milanese 13-14-15 October 2014

Author

Alessandro Luciani

Division eni S.p.A.

Upstream & Technical Services

Dept. COMP

Company Tutors

Paolo Giunta

Lorenzo Corti

University Tutor

Prof. Francesca Verga

Master in Petr.Engineering & Operations 2013-2014

Stage SubjectSucker rod pumping system: Beam Pumping Unit vs Long Stroke


services3

List of Content

� Introduction

� Project scope

� Technology Description

� Candidates Selection

� Technical and Economical Comparison

� Recommendations and Conclusions




services4

Introduction


ESP

58%Sucker Rod

18%

PCP

8%

Plunger

4%

Gas Lift

4%

Hydraulic

2%

Other

6%

Artificial Lift Market Share

(based on $)

Source: Weatherford


services5

Introduction


Sucker Rod System Overview


services6

Introduction


Conventional Beam Pumping Unit


services7

Introduction


Hydraulic Long-Stroke UnitElectro-Mechanical Long-Stroke Unit


services8

Introduction


Operating Depth 100 to 11000 ft TVD

Operating Volume 5 to 1500 BPD

Operating Temperature 100 to 350 °F

Wellbore deviation 0 to 20° Landed Pump

Corrosion Handling Good to Excellent with Upgraded materials

Gas Handling Fair to Good

Solids Handling Fair to Good

API Gravity Low - Medium

Servicing Workover or Pulling Rig

Prime mover Type Gas, Diesel or Electric Motor

Offshore Application Mainly Limited by Weight and Foot-Print

System Efficiency 45 to 60 %

Sucker Rod System Typical Range


services9

List of Content

� Introduction

� Project Scope








services10

Project Scope


To perform a technical and economical comparison of beam pump vs long stroke

To develop suitable methodology that considers key indicators for the comparison

(technical, reliability, logistic and environmental and economical parameters)


services11

Project Scope


Candidates

Selection

Beam Pump

&

Long Stroke

Designs

Technical

&

EconomicalComparison

Recommendationsand Conclusions

Project Workflow


services12

Project Scope


Technical Parameters

• Tubing Size [in]

• Plunger Size [in]

• Rod string

• Stroke [in]

• Pumping Speed [SPM]

• Number of Cycles per year [x106 Strokes]

• Calculated Horse Power [HP]

• System Efficiency [Motor to Pump] [%]

• PPRL [lbs]

• Peak Gearbox Torque [x103 in-lbs]

• Unit Selection

Reliability Parameters

(Rod String)

• Estimated failures rate [failures/year]

• Number of failuresover 10 years

• Expected run-life [years]

Logistic & Environmental

Parameters

• Dimensions [m]

• Foot-print [m2]

• Weight [t]

EconomicalParameters

• OPEX over 10 years (Power ConsumptionCost + WorkoversCost+ Maintenance Cost) [x106 €]

• CAPEX [x106 €]

• Total Cost [x106 €]

Main Parameters

RodStar Software Design


services13

List of Content

� Introduction

� Project Scope

� Technology description







services14

Technology Description


Conventional Beam Pumping Unit

API Unit DesignationC-XXX-XXX-XXX

C : Conventional UnitXXX: Peak Torque Rating Gear ReducerXXX: Maximum Structure CapacityXXX: Maximum Stroke Length Available

Features• Totally Mechanical Unit• Low-Medium Rates• Reduced Stroke• Stroke variation limited• Leverage System

Only On-shore application


services15



Features• High Loads & Rates• Long Stroke• Continous stroke variation without stop production• Pumping speed variation in Upstroke and

Downstroke to optimize the production• Remote control

On-shore ApplicationLimitations:Off-shore Application

Electro-Mechanical Long Stroke


services16



Features• Directly installed on Well

Head• Low-Medium Loads &

Medium Flow Rates• Long Stroke• Continous stroke variation

without stop production• Pumping speed variation

in Upstroke and Downstroke to optimizethe production

• Remote control

On-shore/Off-shore ApplicationAPI Unit Designation

H-XXX-XXX

H: Hydraulic UnitXXX: Maximum Structure CapacityXXX: Maximum Stroke Length Available

Hydraulic Long Stroke


services17

List of Content



� Introduction

� Project Scope






services18

Candidates selection


Oil field #1: land wells producing with sucker rod pumping

Well Selection: based on average field and well parameters and not related to specific well – 3 well typologies selected

Well

ParametersWell A Well B Well C

Gross Rate

[bbl/d]200 400 800

WC [%] 40 60 80

PI [stb/d/psi] 1,5 12,4 23,2

Field Parameters

Static BHT [°F] 154

Static BHP [psi] 1450

Reservoir Depth [ft] 3810

Oil Gravity @ rc

[°API]25

Oil Viscosity @ rc

[cP]25


services19

List of Content

� Introduction

� Project Scope






Stage SubjectSucker rod pumping system: Beam Pumping Unit vs Linear Pump


services20

Technical and Economical Comparison


Technical Indicators

Well A (Target 200 bfpd) System Design

ConventionalElectro-Mechanical Long

StrokeHydraulic Long Stroke

Tubing Size [in] 2 7/8 2 7/8 2 7/8

Plunger Size [in] 2,25 2,25 2,25

Stroke [in] 144 276 360

Rod String 76 76 76

Pumping Speed [SPM] 3,26 1,55 1,18

Number of Cycles per

year [x106 Strokes]1,71 0,81 0,6

Calculated Horse Power

[HP]10 10 8

System Efficiency [%] 46 51 52

PPRL [lbs] 15816 15070 14936

Peak Gearbox Torque

[x103 in-lbs]271 56 -

API UNIT DESIGNATION C-456-256-144 R-228-308-276 H-190-360


services21




Well B (Target 400 bfpd) System Design



Tubing Size [in] 2 7/8 2 7/8 2 7/8


Stroke [in] 192 276 360

Rod String 76 76 76

Pumping Speed [SPM] 5,32 3 2,15


year [x106 Strokes]2,80 1,58 1,2


[HP]20 15 15


PPRL [lbs] 16764 15927 15750

Peak Gearbox Torque

[x103 in-lbs]408 62 -



services22




Well C (Target 800 bfpd) System Design



Tubing Size [in] 3 1/2 3 1/2 3 1/2


Stroke [in] 192 288 360

Rod String 76 76 76

Pumping Speed [SPM] 6,55 3,95 3,19


year [x106 Strokes]3,44 2,1 1,7


[HP]50 40 40


PPRL [lbs] 21000 19138 19252

Peak Gearbox Torque

[x103 in-lbs]779 125 -



services23



Well A (Target 200 bfpd)

Conventional

Electro-

Mechanical Long

Stroke

Hydraulic Long

Stroke

Stroke [in] 144 276 360

Pumping Speed

[SPM]3,26 1,55 1,18

Estimated failures rate [failures/year]

0,171 0,081 0,062

Number of failuresover 10 years

1,7 0,8 0,6

Expected run-life [years]

6 12 16

Reliability Parameters (Rod String)


services24




Well B (Target 400 bfpd)

Conventional

Electro-

Mechanical Long

Stroke

Hydraulic Long

Stroke

Stroke [in] 192 276 360

Pumping Speed

[SPM]5,32 3 2,15


0,280 0,158 0,1214


2,8 1,6 1,2


4 6 8


services25




Well C (Target 800 bfpd)

Conventional

Electro-

Mechanical Long

Stroke

Hydraulic Long

Stroke

Stroke [in] 192 288 360

Pumping Speed

[SPM]6,55 3,95 3,19


0,344 0,208 0,1677


3,4 2,1 1,7


3 5 6


services26



Well A (Target 200 bfpd)

Conventional

Electro-

Mechanical Long

Stroke

Hydraulic Long

Stroke

Unit Lenght [m] 11,4 6,1 3,1

Unit Width [m] 2,3 2,1 1,8

Height [m] 6,5 11,8 21

Foot-print (LxW) [m2] 26,22 12,81 5,58

Weight [t] 25 16,5 2,8

Logistic & Environmental Parameters

Long Stroke: Power Unit and Variable Speed Control System


services27




Well B (Target 400 bfpd)

Conventional

Electro-

Mechanical Long

Stroke

Hydraulic Long

Stroke

Unit Lenght [m] 13,37 6,1 3,1

Unit Width [m] 2,6 2,1 1,8

Height [m] 7,1 11,8 21

Foot-print (LxW) [m2] 34,76 12,81 5,58

Weight [t] 31,7 16,5 2,8



services28




Well C (Target 800 bfpd)

Conventional

Electro-

Mechanical Long

Stroke

Hydraulic Long

Stroke

Unit Lenght [m] 11,9 6,6 3,1

Unit Width [m] 2,7 2,3 1,8

Height [m] 8 12,28 21

Foot-print (LxW) [m2] 32,13 15,18 5,58

Weight [t] 32,6 19,5 2,8



services29



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Well B

We

igh

t [t

on

]

Logistic & Environmental Impact

Comparison: Weight

Conventional



0

10

20

30

40

Well B

Fo

ot-

Pri

nt

[m2]


Comparison: Foot-Print

Conventional



0

5

10

15

20

25

Well B

He

igh

t [m

]


Comparison: Height

Conventional



• Conventional Unit:• On-shore application• No Off-shore application

• Electromechanical Long Stroke:• On-shore application• Limitations: Off-shore application

• Hydraulic Long Stroke:• On-shore/Off-shore application

WELL B (Target 400 bfpd)


services30



Longer Stroke Lower Pumping Speed

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Pu

mp

ing

Sp

ee

d[S

PM

]

Fluid production[bfpd]

Technical Comparison Pumping Speed

Conventional Electro-Mechanical Long Stroke Hydraulic Long Stroke


services31



12000

13000

14000

15000

16000

17000

18000

19000

20000

21000

22000

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Pe

ak

Po

lish

ed

Ro

d L

oa

d [

lbs]


Technical Comparison Peak Polished Rod Load


Long Stroke: Lower Pumping Speed & Optimized velocity Lower Peak Polished Rod Load


services32



Long Stroke: Lower Peak Polished Rod Load & Higher Volumetric Efficiency OPEX reduction

30

35

40

45

50

55

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Syst

em

Eff

icie

ncy

[%

]


Technical Comparison System efficiency [Motor to Pump]



services33



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Co

mp

ute

d H

ors

e P

ow

er

[H

P]


Technical Comparison Calculated Horse Power


Long Stroke:Lower Peak Polished Rod Load & Higher Efficiency Lower Horse Power


services34



0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

CA

PE

X [

x1

06

€]


Economical Comparison CAPEX


Conventional: Totally Mechanical UnitLong Stroke: Electrically or Hydraulically powered with variable speed controller


services35



0.000

0.050

0.100

0.150

0.200

0.250

0.300

0.350

0.400

0.450

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

OP

EX

ove

r 1

0 y

ea

rs [

x1

06

€]


Economical Comparison OPEX over 10 years

(Power Consumption Cost + Workovers Cost +

Maintenance Cost)

Conventional Electro-Mechanical Long Stroke Hydraulic Long Stroke Unit

Lower Power Consumption CostLower Workovers CostLower Maintenance Cost

Horse PowerRod String lifePlanned Maintenance & Spare Parts


services36



Low Flow Rate: ConventionalHigh Flow Rate: Long Stroke

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Tota

l C

ost

[x1

06

€]


Economical Comparison Total Cost



services37



Low Flow Rate: ConventionalMedium Flow Rate: Hydraulic Long Stroke

Higher Flow Rates & High Loads: Electro-Mechanical Long Stroke

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

0.900

1.000

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Tota

l C

ost

[x1

06

€]


Economical Comparison Total Cost

Conventional Electro-Mechanical Long Stroke

Hydraulic Long Stroke Lineare (Electro-Mechanical Long Stroke)

Lineare (Hydraulic Long Stroke)


services38

List of Content

� Introduction

� Project Scope








services39

Recommendations and Conclusions


Conventional

• Suitable for Low Flow Rates

• On-shore

• Limitations Weight and Foot-print

Hydra

ulic • Suitable for Low-Medium Loads & Medium Flow Rates

• On-shore

• Off-shore

• Limitations Structural Capacity

Ele

ctr

o-m

echanic

al

• Suitable for High Flow Rates & High Loads(Viscous Oil)

• On-shore

• Limitations

• Weight and Foot-print


services40

Recommendations and Conclusions


Conclusions

• The long-stroke unit advantages from literature are confirmed by this project

• Development of a suitable methodology for sucker rodsurface unit selection in new projects

• Methodology effectiveness needs to be calibrated whenfield data as relevant feedback will be available


services41

Acknowledgements

I would thank Eni s.p.a. Upstream & Technical

Services Division Management for permission to

present this work and related results and COMP

colleagues for the technical support and needed

assistance.


Questions ?

eni s.p.a. upstream & technical services · PDF file · 2014-10-21Sucker rod...

Documents

Transcript of eni s.p.a. upstream & technical services · PDF file · 2014-10-21Sucker rod...