Artificial Lift Screening and Selection
38 likes9,742 views
The document outlines a masterclass on artificial lift screening and selection, emphasizing the process's importance in optimizing liquid production from wells. It presents a systematic three-step process for selecting artificial lift methods, covering screening, evaluation, and selection, and highlights various technologies and their characteristics. Additionally, it underscores the impact of effective artificial lift selection on reservoir management, production efficiency, and overall asset value.
Artificial Lift Screening and Selection
- 1. Artificial Lift Screening and Selection Master Class Andres Martingano Artificial Lift 2013 – Praxis Interactive Technology Workshop
- 2. 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 Page 2Artificial Lift Screening and Selection9 Sep 2013
- 3. 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 Page 3Artificial Lift Screening and Selection9 Sep 2013
- 4. The Need: One approach • Liquid production profile with initial natural flow period 70 100 Page 4Artificial Lift Screening and Selection9 Sep 2013 “Delay AL ” approach -20 10 40 70 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 LiquidRate Time Good Natural Flow Period Complement Reservoir Energy Provide External Energy Increased need for energy to lift fluid (depletion, WC increase)
- 5. 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 LiquidRate Time Complement Reservoir Energy from Day 1 Late Introduction of Artificial Lift Page 5Artificial Lift Screening and Selection9 Sep 2013 “Accelerate production” approach
- 6. 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! Page 6Artificial Lift Screening and Selection9 Sep 2013
- 7. 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 Page 7Artificial Lift Screening and Selection9 Sep 2013
- 8. 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 Page 8Artificial Lift Screening and Selection
- 9. 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 9 Sep 2013 Page 9Artificial Lift Screening and Selection 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
- 10. AL Selection Impact on Asset Value 9 Sep 2013 Page 10Artificial Lift Screening and Selection VALUE
- 11. 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 9 Sep 2013 Page 11Artificial Lift Screening and Selection 1. Screen 2. Evaluate 3. Select • There can be less flexibility to adopt a different AL method
- 12. 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 9 Sep 2013 Page 12Artificial Lift Screening and Selection 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
- 13. 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 9 Sep 2013 Page 13Artificial Lift Screening and Selection
- 14. 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 Page 14Artificial Lift Screening and Selection9 Sep 2013
- 15. Widely Used ... • GL • ESP • SRP Even Less Used • HSP • ESPCP • HDESP Some AL Options Less Used ... • HPP • JP • SRP • PCP • PL • HDESP • Wellhead Ejectors 9 Sep 2013 Artificial Lift Screening and Selection Page 15
- 16. 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 9 Sep 2013 Artificial Lift Screening and Selection Page 16 Image courtesy of Weatherford
- 17. 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 9 Sep 2013 Page 17Artificial Lift Screening and Selection
- 18. 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 9 Sep 2013 Artificial Lift Screening and Selection Page 18 Image courtesy of Weatherford
- 19. 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 9 Sep 2013 Page 19Artificial Lift Screening and Selection
- 20. 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 9 Sep 2013 Artificial Lift Screening and Selection Page 20 Image courtesy of Weatherford
- 21. 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 9 Sep 2013 Page 21Artificial Lift Screening and Selection
- 22. Advantages • Adaptable to a wide range of well depths and deviations • Can be circulated into and Limitations • Solids handling • Requires specific bottom-hole assemblies HPP: Typical Pros and Cons • Can be circulated into and 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 9 Sep 2013 Artificial Lift Screening and Selection Page 22 Image courtesy of Weatherford
- 23. 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 9 Sep 2013 Artificial Lift Screening and Selection Page 23 Image courtesy of Weatherford
- 24. 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) 9 Sep 2013 Page 24Artificial Lift Screening and Selection
- 25. 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 9 Sep 2013 Artificial Lift Screening and Selection Page 25 Image courtesy of Weatherford
- 26. 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 9 Sep 2013 Page 26Artificial Lift Screening and Selection
- 27. 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 9 Sep 2013 Artificial Lift Screening and Selection Page 27 Image courtesy of Weatherford
- 28. Other Systems • Hydraulic Submersible Pump (HSP) • Electrical Submersible PCP (ESPCP) • Hydraulic Diaphragm ESP (HDESP) • Wellhead Ejectors (Surface Jet Pumps) • ... and others...• ... and others... 9 Sep 2013 Page 28Artificial Lift Screening and Selection
- 29. 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 differentapplicability 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) 9 Sep 2013 Page 29Artificial Lift Screening and Selection
- 30. 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 Page 30Artificial Lift Screening and Selection9 Sep 2013
- 31. 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 9 Sep 2013 Page 31Artificial Lift Screening and Selection LOF Design Economics and Scorecards 2. Evaluate 3. Select
- 32. 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 9 Sep 2013 Page 32Artificial Lift Screening and Selection 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 LiquidRate(bpd) Lift Depth (ft TVD)
- 33. Screening Common Options: ‘Quick-look’ 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 9 Sep 2013 Page 33Artificial Lift Screening and Selection 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 LiquidRate(bpd) Lift Depth (ft TVD) PL
- 34. Screening Common Options: ‘Quick-look’ 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 9 Sep 2013 Page 34Artificial Lift Screening and Selection Operating temperature (°F) 550 250 400 500 500 500 400 Corrosion handling Good to Excellent Fair Good to Excellent Excellent Good Excellent Good Gas handling Fair to Good Good Excellent Excellent Fair Good Poor to Fair Solids handling Fair to Good Excellent Good Poor to Fair Poor Good Poor to Fair Fluid gravity (°API) > 8 < 35 > 15 GLR = 300 scf/bbl /1000ft depth > 8 > 8 > 10 Servicing Workover 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 mover Gas or Electric Gas or Electric Compressor Reservoir energy Multicylinder or Electric Multicylinder or Electric Electric Motor Offshore application Limited Good Excellent N/A Good Excellent Excellent Overall system efficiency (%) 45 - 60 45 - 70 10 - 30 N/A 45 - 55 10 - 30 35 - 60
- 35. 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 9 Sep 2013 Page 35Artificial Lift Screening and Selection
- 36. Building a Better Attributes Table 9 Sep 2013 Page 36Artificial Lift Screening and Selection
- 37. Building a Better Attributes Table 9 Sep 2013 Page 37Artificial Lift Screening and Selection
- 38. Building a Better Attributes Table 9 Sep 2013 Page 38Artificial Lift Screening and Selection
- 39. Building a Better Attributes Table 9 Sep 2013 Page 39Artificial Lift Screening and Selection
- 40. Building a Better Attributes Table 9 Sep 2013 Page 40Artificial Lift Screening and Selection
- 41. Building a Better Attributes Table 9 Sep 2013 Page 41Artificial Lift Screening and Selection
- 42. Uptime Surface Facilities Factors Well Factors Start-up from Shutdown Possibility of Expansion Gas Availability Power Availability Location Capacity Constraints Remote Offshore Onshore Building a Better Attributes Table 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 9 Sep 2013 Page 42Artificial Lift Screening and Selection
- 43. Building a Better Attributes Table 9 Sep 2013 Page 43Artificial Lift Screening and Selection
- 44. Building a Better Attributes Table 9 Sep 2013 Page 44Artificial Lift Screening and Selection
- 45. Building a Better Attributes Table 9 Sep 2013 Page 45Artificial Lift Screening and Selection
- 46. Building a Better Attributes Table 9 Sep 2013 Page 46Artificial Lift Screening and Selection
- 47. Building a Better Attributes Table 9 Sep 2013 Page 47Artificial Lift Screening and Selection
- 48. Building a Better Attributes Table • Possibly, not all the attributes are important for a given case • Refine... 9 Sep 2013 Page 48Artificial Lift Screening and Selection • Refine...
- 49. Building a Better Attributes Table 9 Sep 2013 Page 49Artificial Lift Screening and Selection
- 50. Building a Better Attributes Table • 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 9 Sep 2013 Page 50Artificial Lift Screening and Selection
- 51. Building a Better Attributes Table ALS # 1 ALS # 2 ... ALS # n Attribute # 1 Attribute # 2 Attribute # 3 • Typical presentation (easily implemented in a spreadsheet) Attribute # 3 ... Attribute # n 9 Sep 2013 Page 51Artificial Lift Screening and Selection • Is documented • Includes all important attributes • Considers inputs from other disciplines
- 52. 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 Page 52Artificial Lift Screening and Selection9 Sep 2013
- 53. AL Selection: Evaluate Phase • Quantitative analysis – find conditions for AL systems operation • Design systems to operate in the field Attribute tables1. Screen • Provide feedback to wells and facilities design • Assess performance of the system under changing conditions • Generate estimates for economics 9 Sep 2013 Page 53Artificial Lift Screening and Selection LOF Design Economics and Scorecards 2. Evaluate 3. Select
- 54. AL Selection: Evaluate Phase 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 9 Sep 2013 Page 54Artificial Lift Screening and Selection
- 55. AL Selection: Evaluate Phase • Formation-Face Operating Envelope – an example BHP VLP to be achieved P Minimumrate orstableoperation 9 Sep 2013 Page 55Artificial Lift Screening and Selection Qliq Pbp Pformation integrity Qmin Qmax Pres initial Pres abandon Minimum allowable BHP Minimumrate forstableoperation
- 56. AL Selection: Evaluate Phase • Design AL for LOF Conditions Expected Production Profiles •GOR vs. Cumulative •WC vs. Cumulative •Reservoir Pressure vs. Cumulative •Early Life 9 Sep 2013 Page 56Artificial Lift Screening and Selection 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
- 57. AL Selection: Evaluate Phase • 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 9 Sep 2013 Page 57Artificial Lift Screening and Selection
- 58. 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 Page 58Artificial Lift Screening and Selection9 Sep 2013
- 59. AL Selection: Select Phase • Quantitative analysis – economics • Evaluate NPV of using different systems Attribute tables1. Screen • Understand where value is generated and lost • Optimize design 9 Sep 2013 Page 59Artificial Lift Screening and Selection LOF Design Economics and Scorecards 2. Evaluate 3. Select
- 60. AL Selection: Select Phase • 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 9 Sep 2013 Page 60Artificial Lift Screening and Selection
- 61. AL Selection: Select Phase • Compare NPVs 40 50 60 70 NPV(MM$) Value Comparison • Don’t stop here! 9 Sep 2013 Page 61Artificial Lift Screening and Selection 0 10 20 30 40 ALS #1 ALS #2 ALS #3 NPV(MM$)
- 62. AL Selection: Select Phase • Understand where value is gained or lost 100 120 140 160 NPV(MM$) 9 Sep 2013 Page 62Artificial Lift Screening and Selection 0 20 40 60 80 100 NPV(MM$)
- 63. AL Selection: Select Phase • Understand the prize for improving different areas 20 25 30 35 40 NPV(MM$) 9 Sep 2013 Page 63Artificial Lift Screening and Selection 0 5 10 15 20 NPV(MM$) CAPEX Interventions OPEX Production Losses ReplaceEquipment Abandonment
- 64. AL Selection: Select Phase • 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 9 Sep 2013 Page 64Artificial Lift Screening and Selection
- 65. Refine options Refine budget Select and AL Contracting and AL Selection: Select Phase Refine options for design and implementation Refine budget requirements Select and AL system Contracting and Procurement 9 Sep 2013 Page 65Artificial Lift Screening and Selection
- 66. 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 Page 66Artificial Lift Screening and Selection9 Sep 2013
- 67. 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 9 Sep 2013 Page 67Artificial Lift Screening and Selection