SPE 29510
Decision Tree for Selection of Artificial Lift Method
Lloyd R. Heinze,* and Herald W. Winkler, * Texas Tech University, and James F. Lea,* AMOCO Production
Company
* SPE Members
oor 106, acy of Poeun Engrs
‘Ti pow was pope rmination Opto Sympathy OM. ULE. 4 At 1808
ABSTRACT
Recent changes, upgrades and development in
artificial lift equipment have expanded the
considerations for selection of pumping method. This
paper covers sucker rod pumping, continuous gas-lift,
intermittent gas-lift, electric submersible pumping,
hydraulic reciprocating pumping, hydraulic jet
systems, plunger lift, progressing cavity pumping, and
additional miscellaneous pumping methods. Changes
{in well conditions and equipment capabilities demand
timely reviews of the original lift method decision to
determine if itis still the best choice. Often the
selection of the lift method is based on operating
personnel / decision maker equipment familiarity.
Included in the decision tree should be a long term
‘economic analysis. This paper will consider how new
advances in individual methods have changed their
cost effectiveness and provided solutions to unique
problems.
There is not a single lift system that is the most
References and illustrations at end of paper.
economic system for all wells. In order to access the
practically and the economics of various methods of
artificial lift, the first step is to generate an IPR
(Inflow Performance Relationship) curve or a PI
(Productivity Index). Then a profile of expected and
desired production versus time should be determined.
Figures 1 & 2.
With the above information, potential artificial lift
methods can be introduced, including expected run
lives and cost considerations for the most obvious
methods. Detailed cost estimates of the well
operating cost are then reported and compared to the
numbers used in the economic evaluation of the field.
The economics of low rate wells and high rate wells
need to be adjusted to account for the economics of
the project.
‘The economy of scale and simpler logistics of just
using one lift system in most fields will probably not
weigh up against the savings of using the most
economic system on each well. Early in the life of the
field the well may produce 100% oil with a moderate
GOR. As the field declines and pressure maintenance
begins GOR will increase and then rapidly decline2 DECISION TREE FOR SELECTION OF ARTIFICIAL LIFT METHOD
while water production will increase. What range of
BFPD is project, and what is the desired producing
sand face pressure, Pw.
‘Areas of evaluation of lift methods include (1)
lifetime cost, (2) operating cost, (3) energy efficiency,
(4) initial capital cost.
Sucker rod pump systems (SRP)
Beam pumps are the most widely used artificial lift
method in the United States (85% or 450,000 wells)
and the entire world (50+%). They are best for low to
moderate production, primarily on land based
installations. Figure 3 summarizes the depth-rate
limitations for practical beam pumps in vertical
wells.’ When larger than 640 units or ‘special long
stroke units or newly developed fiberglass rods or
ribbon rods are used the above rate/depth curves can
be stretched. The long run life with minimum failures
resulted from the 1980 data may not be realized with
the improvements that stretch the envelope.
Progressive Cavity Pumps (PCP) (Moineau Pump
Systems)
Progressive Cavity (PC) pumps are known for their
ability to pump viscous fluids or to handle solids.
This is a production application of equipment used
originally in drilling as a mud motor for rotating the
drill bit. They operate by rotating a steel helically
shaped rotor inside a elastomer stator. Cavities are
generated between the stator and the rotor and the
cavities move upward as the stator is rotated. This
auguring action method, while less than 1% of
pumping wells, has become a recent player in this
scene. They have been known to pump some deep
wells but 3-4000 ft is a reasonable depth limit for
long term runs. The rubber compounds of the
downhole rotor is subject to swelling or hardening
under high temperatures or if H,S gasses are present.
Capital cost is relatively low and energy efficiency is
good. Continual pump submergence is required to
SPE 29510
‘maintain lubrication or else the downhole unit will be
destroyed. Design and diagnosis methods are on a
steep improvement curve.
Most PC pumps are driven by rotating rods by a
surface unit, Centrilift and Reda have tested PC
pumps driven by downhole ESP type motors (about a
dozen units are known to be operating). There are
also some of these applications operating in Russia.
This hybrid pump may overcome the problems
associated with maximum torque that sucker rods can
withstand and ultimately extend the depth limitations
of this method, however the high starting torque
required by PC pumps will require special changes to
the conventional low starting torque ESP motors, The
top motor is geared to run the downhole pump at 200-
500 rpm.
Gaslift
Gaslift is a system where injected gas down the
annulus enters the tubing through the gaslift valves.
‘The valves sequentially close from top to next to the
bottom valve as the well is unloaded. The gas in the
tubing lightens the gradient in the tubing, increases
the velocity of the fluid in the tubing resulting in a
lower bottom hole pressure. Gaslift is used for higher
volumes of production. Downtime is very small, as
preventive maintenance can be conducted on most of
the critical parts. In extreme cold climates, hydrates
formation in the surface lines may cause interruptions
of gas delivery to the wells. Conventional gaslift
cannot achieve low FBHP (flowing bottom hole
Pressure).
This is the second most widely used method of lif,
especially offshore. In total volume of oil lifted it
rivals sucker rod pumping. When you discount
stripper well production, gaslift accounts for over
0% of artificially lifted wells. Downhole equipment
is relatively inexpensive but surface compression
equipment can be costly if a central system is not
applicable. Design and diagnostic methods areSPE29510
mature and accurate. Produced solids and gas are
handled well. Gas injection can be continuous for
high volume producers or intermittent for low volume
wells.
Electrical Submersible Pump Systems (ESP)
Electrical Submersible Pump systems have their
pump and motor at the end of the tubing string,
Power is transmitted to the motor via an electrical
three phase cable banded to the outside of the tubing.
‘The motor, situated below the pump, is cooled by the
flow of well fluids. Centrifugal pump stages in
ESP’s become efficient as they become larger of at
rates over 500 BFPD. The lower limit of ESP’s is
100 BFPD, below 200 BFPD rates involve
operational problems. A potential solution to the low
rate problems might be the use of larger capacity
stages which are more efficient due to larger openings
and tum them at reduced RPM’s with VSD's or
design the motors for significantly slower speeds.
(Typically ESP's tun at 3600+- RPMs). The
requirement to kill a well prior to pulling the pump
may be overcome in the future by use of a permanent
production packer with a valve opened by a stinger at
the bottom of the ESP motor, the use of coiled tubing
run ESP’s trip under pressure would also eliminate
the problems associated with killing the well. The
depth constraint of ESP’s discussed by Powers is a
function of temperature, velocity and heat capacity of
the fluid moving past the motor?
Hydraulic powered pump systems
‘Hydraulic systems depend on high pressure water or
oil (power fluid) supplied from a pump at the surface,
The surface pump can be piston or centrifugal, but it
‘must provide enough pressure and rate to deliver
sufficient hydraulic horsepower to the down hole
pump. The downhole pump may be actuated by
pressure driven piston engine on top of the pump.
‘The downhole pump can be a piston pump (HRP) or a
jet pump (HIP). The hydraulic piston pump is more
L.R. HEINZE, H. W. WINKLER, & J. F. LEA 3
efficient than the jet pump, higher pressure fluid must
be supplied to the jet pump. The jet pump, where the
power fluid goes through a throat in the jet pump, and
creates a low pressure area to which the formation is
exposed. The jet pump is more able to pump abrasive
sand or scale than the piston pump. A further
disadvantage of the jet pump is that the FBHP
(Flowing Bottom Hole Pressure) can not lowered as
much as can be done (2000 psi) with the piston pump.
Hydraulic systems are further divided by the
tubing/annulus pathways of the power fluid, the
production, and the free gas. Further, the geometry of
the tubulars allow the hydraulic pump to be brought
to the surface for maintenance by reversing the
direction of the power fluid.
Decision Tree process
The first step in the decision process is to reduce the
possibilities based on technical merit. Pumping
methods that cannot pump the well(s) without severe
technical limitations are excluded from further
consideration. Using the constraints of q, volumetric
pumping capacity, versus depth combined with
desired FBHP, hole deviation, and the well(s)
reservoir characteristics - predicted PI or IPR will
generally reduces the possible pump methods by at
least 50%. Figure 4 is a check list that can be used to
prompt the thought and fact gathering process.
‘The second step is to look at secondary technical
problems such as temperature limitations, operational
personal training, availability of prime mover power
source or fluid, surface considerations (space limits,
noise, visibility, safety) and additional downhole
limitations (high GLR, scale, sand, corrosion). Look
for factors that clearly narrow the choices and
eliminate methods that are not feasible. For example
if the well is offshore, then rod pumping would
probably not be a candidate, Equipment weight and
bulk would add greatly to the cost of the platform.
Meaningful ways to eliminate a method from
consideration can diminish the time and effort4 DECISION TREE FOR SELECTION OF ARTIFICIAL LIFT METHOD
required to make a final choice.
The third step is to investigate the economies of the
remaining technically feasible methods. For the
remaining candidate methods, select configurations of
equipment which will produce the required volume
from the design depth. Obtain bids on the equipment
from the various manufacturers. For each candidate
method, calculate the present day value of the
investment over the life of the well considering initial
cost, energy cost, repair and maintenance and salvage
value. Cost comparison are made on a well by well
basis and also on a field wide basis. Investment costs,
workover costs and repair costs, additional personnel
costs, energy costs, maintenance cost, downtime
costs, inventory costs and overhead.
Lastly, considering the outcome of step three, make a
final choice ater considering subjective items that
can not be easily quantified
‘The process of selecting the ideal pumping system is
both complex and subjective. Different investigators
‘may choose different systems using the same facts
and information. Yet there is a thought process all
can follow to remove some of the subjectivity.
ECONOMICS
‘The choice should be made on economics. Items such
as initial (capital) cost, energy cost, personnel
operation costs, routine maintenance and replacement
costs, and replacement of capital items as they wear
‘out can be estimated with some precision. The
present value and rate of return concepts are applied
to these costs as economic measurements by most oil
companies to factor in the time value of money.
Beyond this, however, the matter becomes less
certain. For example, who is to know how many rod
parts might occur from improper handling and
improper joint make-up and how many pump failures
might result from sand production, improper
metallurgy selection and poor operating practices? In
SPE 29510
the category of repair and maintenance (R&M), many
such questions exist. In the entire history of the oil
industry, such matters have never been quantified.
Thus human judgement based on experience and logic
must be used.
DEPTH VS. VOLUME
Depth and volume to be lifted will have a strong
influence on the final selection. Those considerations
alone may narrow the choices. If the equipment only
needs to lift 50 BPD from 7000 f, the clear choice
may be rod pumping.
RESERVOIR CHARACTERISTICS
Reservoir characteristics and the anticipated depletion
plan should also be considered. The well may be
expected to decline rapidly. It would not be wise to
choose a high volume method that will only be
required for a short time. A better choice may be to
select a lower capacity method even though
production can not be maximized initially.
Conversely if produced volumes are expected to
increase at some time in the future, it might be best to
select a method that can be up sized, perhaps and ESP
system with a variable frequency drive added later. If
CO, flooding is in the reservoir’s future, corrosion
and gas interference tolerance lift methods should be
selected. For a gravity drainage reservoir, sucker rod
liftis selected because of anticipated low volume, and
it’s ability to draw down the sand face pressure to a
low producing pressure.
LOCATION
Location can further reduce choices. ESP and
hydraulic system are less visually and audibly
obtrusive in an urban area, Lack of electric power or
economically supplied electric power would
disqualify ESP, Remote areas, offshore, arctic, etc.
may force a different selection and override all the
other factors. In remote frontier locationsSPE29510
serviceability, reliability and a need for limited
common inventory might dictate that a less efficient
single method be chosen for a field, Depth and
production rate would have instead suggested a triad
of pump methods for the same field. In the U.S.
‘market, overall efficiency and total operating costs are
the major players in pump selection.
EXAMPLE
‘The following hypothetical Permian Basin well
characteristics are established.” The well’s IPR / PI
suggests that 700 BFPD will result at 150 psi
producing sand face pressure. The formation is at 600
f. The temperature gradient is normal. The
production casing is 5.5 inch OD, 17 #/A. The well
was designed to be vertical and hole deviation is
nominal, Gas interference and solids production are
insignificant. A tubing gradient of 0.4 psi/ft. is
calculated from oil and water percentages and
gravities. The location is rural, electric power is
available, and moderate corrosion and paraffin
deposition are projected. The well life is ten years
,and an annual inflation rate of 6% is projected,
‘The methods remaining after steps 1 and 2 would be
Sucker rod, ESP, and Hydraulic. Using established
design calculations for each method, equipment might
be sized as follows.
SUCKER ROD SYSTEM
C640-365-168 unit
75 hp NEMA D motor, 440 volt, 110 amp
NEMA Size 4 control box, Transformers
1.25 inch fiberglass w/ 1 inch steel sinker bars
2.25 inch tubing pump
pumping tee, tubing anchor, stuffing box
2.875 inch OD, 6.5 #/f. J-55 tubing
ESP SYSTEM
250 stage pump
L.R. HEINZE, H. W. WINKLER, & J. F. LEA
62.5 hp motor, 1300 volt, 31 amp
#4 cable, round
1500 volt, 100 amp control box, Transformers
surface cable, wellhead, vent box
2.875 inch OD, 6.5 #/ft.J-55 tubing
HYDRAULIC SYSTEM
2.875 inch high volume casing free pump
75 bp NEMA B motor
PFCU w/ 100 hp triplex, 1.5 inch plungers
Switch box, transformers
wellhead, surface plumbing, PF tank
2.875 inch OD, 6.5 #/ft. 1-55 tubing
The hypothetical well's present value calculations for
the three lifts methods might be:
COST ($1000) SR ESP HPP
Capital (initial) 86 44079
Power (monthly) 147 196 182
Repair & Maint. 7 65) (77
Salvage(vear10) =22 =20 =10
TOTAL 288 «303-328
‘The capital costs shown are relative and will change
duc to unpredictable discounts from list prices we see
in todays market. For sucker rod lift replacement are
calculated as 1) rod string every three years, 2) tubing
string once in ten years due to rod-tubing wear, 3)
pump r & r and rod parts twice a year. The ESP
method assumes a downhole failure every two years.
The repair and maintenance of the hydraulic pump is
from surveys. Costs unchanged by the three methods
are not considered,
‘When estimating repair and maintenance costs, which
are the most of uncertain of all, use all information
available. Lease operators, supervisors, and
accounting data are use to obtain the repair and
maintenance cost projections.
The cost of energy really stands out in this deferred6 DECISION TREE FOR SELECTION OF ARTIFICIAL LIFT METHOD
cost analysis. It usually outweighs the initial cost,
indicating that the most efficient method is often the
best choice. Clegg, Bucaram, and Hein compared
hydraulic horsepower efficiency of the major lift
methods, rating PCP, SRP, ESP, HRP, HIP, GLC,
and GLI respectively 50-70%, 50-60%, 40-50%, 30-
40%, 10-30% 5-30% and 5-10%.* Current oil
producers are concentration much of their effort on
becoming more efficient, Often small dollar daily,
weekly, or monthly costs are overlooked. These
nickel and dime costs can amount to huge potential
savings, if they can be reduced by changing our
REFERENCES
1 JPT, Sept. 1980 pg. 1546
SPE 29510
operations.
Lastly items not easy to quantify are considered by
assigning equal importance to each category. Figure
xx is a ranking of methods (best=1, middle=2,
lowest=3) by each category, the method with the
lowest sum would be chosen. Perhaps a weighting
methodology should apply to this last process. In an
urban setting obtrusiveness would be weighted higher
than in a rural location, or operator familiarity should
weight higher.
2.Powers, M.L.; “The Depth Constraint of Electric Submersible Pumps,” SPE 24835, 67th
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington, D.C., Oct. 4-7, 1992.
3.Nolen, K.B. & Gibbs, S.G.; “Optimum Selection of Rod, Submersible and Hydraulic Pumping
System, Short Course, 40th Annual Southwestem Petroleum Short Course, Texas Tech
University, April 19-20, 1993.
4.Clegg, J.D., Bucaram, S.M., & Hein Jr., N.W.
“Recommendations and Comparisons for
Selecting Artificial-Lift Methods,” JPT, Dec. 1993, pg. 1128.SPE 29510 L.R. HEINZE, H.W. WINKLER & J.P. LEA
1500.0
Figure 1 IPR Curve
350.0 +
™
2 3000
ah g
20]
Figure 2 Production Vs. Time
FLOWING BOTTOM HOLE PRESSURE - HUNDREDS OF PS}
0 5208 3a0 40030060 760 BOE
PRODUCTION RATE -STBL/0 OR BBL/O
not
possible
less practical
practical
Depth, tt
Figure 3 Sucker Rod Pump Limitations8g DECISION TREE FOR SELECTION OF ARTIFICIAL LIFT METHOD SPE 29510
Figure 4 CONSIDERATIONS FOR SELECTION OF ARTIFICIAL LIFT METHOD
Casing OD - weight, integrity, liner and depths
Wellbore deviation - true vertical depth, measured depth, crooked or dogleg, horizontal sections
Wellbore completion - open hole, perforated casing (perf. Interval, size and density), rat hole for gas separation,
fractured (flow back sand)
Packers - type as permanent or selective release, depths
Flowlines 1D - individual or common, length, elevation changes profile, multiphase flow pump
Bottomhole temperature, any abnormal hot or cold zones in wellbore
Sand, abrasives, scales - identify as sulfate, carbonate, salt, etc., paraffin, viscosity, emulsion, foamy
Daily production rates - BOPD, BWPD, MscfD gas
Fluid properties - oil, water and gas specific gravities, presence of hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen
Well spacing in acres or distance between wells - affect on individual well or central power systems
Reservoir type or drive - closed solution gas, active water, gas cap, primary, secondary, type of tertiary
Predicted life of reservoir, abandonment water cut
Reservoir pressure - present and future IPR on basis of type of proposed reservoir pressure maintenance if any
Electric power availability
Gas source available - pressure and volume (rate) present and future
Production capacity range of the lift system - flexibility for changing production characteristics during reservoir
depletion
Operating costs - failures, energy requirements
Reliability of the lift system
Well workover accessibility - offshore, onshore, platform, multiwell pads
Well servicing - availability of workover units, trained people, and spare parts
Lead time required on deliver ability of new or repaired equipment
Environmental considerations - ranking could be deciding factor, stuffing boxes, spill potential, etc,
Location near populated urban area - noise, appearance
Hazardous and safety concems
Effect of interruptions on lift system - off loading on platforms, sand production and viscous crude
Restrictions on surface physical profile - sprinkler systems low height required
Chemical treatments - preventative, continuous injection, squeeze, hot oil, etc.
Desired downhole monitoring for surveillance, testing, PTA
Field personne! requirement - training, knowledge of lift system
Subsea completions
Multiphase flow pumps on flowline
Gas/liquid ration and water cut history predictions for wells
Minimum flowing BHP for economic consideration
Flexibility of lift system to accommodate rate changes
Ambient surface seasonal temperature change, hydraulic water system in cold country, etc.
Simplicity or complexity of lift systems - add on’s as VSD, transmission, etc.