SPE 131758

ESP Performances for Gas-Lifted High Water Cut Wells

A. Suat Bagci, SPE, Murat Kece, SPE, and Jocsiris Nava, SPE, Eclipse Petroleum Technology Ltd.

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Florence, Italy, 19–22 September 2010.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been reviewed
by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or
members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is
restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract

Electrical Submersible Pumping (ESP) and Gas lift (GL) are a part of the long term production sustainability solutions
in the fields with increasing water cuts, and depleting reservoir energy. In order to increase the production from this
type of fields and sustain the field target rates, production optimization and revisiting of the artificial lift selection proves
to be the best cost effective solution.

This paper summarizes the methodology used and the results of a review of artificial lift strategy in a brown field
environment with severe gaslift constraints. Potential use of alternative artificial lift technologies in selected high water
cut wells was justified. ESP were shown to provide particular advantages related to high water cut oil well applications
and easy surveillance access in addition to operating flexibility for changing conditions.

Present GL flow conditions were simulated to determine the operating envelope and the conditions at which GL flow
ceases. GL vs. ESP performance comparisons were then carried out for each well over their lifecycle. The incremental
revenue and cost impact of ESPs were demonstrated. For all design cases, ESPs can match or exceed the GL
performance in this case for the present, middle and late life cases.

Introduction

The lift gas capacity is currently insufficient to optimize field production. Alternative lift use in high water cut parts of the
fields may release more lift gas for utilization in prolific wells. This will help to improve the production and recovery
from the gas-lifted wells.

This study summarises the potential operating envelope of the suitable options, according to the selected well
operating conditions, and determines the appropriate ESP design required to fulfill the field project objectives.

The following methodology was applied for wells:

• Selected candidate wells were reviewed. PROSPER models were revised and calibrated by matching the
calculated Inflow Performance (IPR) to data measured during production tests.
• Present GL flow conditions were simulated to determine the operating envelope and the conditions at which
GL flow ceases.
• ESP designs were then carried out for the selected wells.
• GL vs. ESP performance comparisons were then carried out for each well to estimate the lifecycle operating
conditions.
• GL and ESP performance comparisons were also carried out for late life of the wells based on low reservoir
pressure with GOR = Rs, water cut values and design pressures.
2 SPE 131758

Literature Review

In recent years, increasing water cuts have been the main cause for the production decline of wells being produced
without artificial lift. As a result, an artificial lift study can be initiated to identify candidate wells in fields for gas lift or
ESP use. Early in the applications, it was believed that ESPs would be required to achieve higher drawdowns for the
following reasons:
• Gas lift could not maintain drawdowns due to rising water cuts during production life of the wells.
• There is limited gas availability because of the compressor rating in especially offshore applications.
• Gas lift mandrels will not be available in existing completions, and a workover will be required irrespective of
whether gas lift or ESP is chosen. In economic sense, artificial lift system can handle the highest water cut and
can avoid a future additional workover, which can be required if gas lift is installed initially in the well.

In Lebada West field, Romania, most of the wells selected for ESP conversion had rising water cuts, which meant
there was limited benefit to installing gas lift. The production stated for gas lift was based on the current water cut;
lower rates were expected with gas lift as water cuts increased due to the limitation in gas availability. ESP was set as
deep as possible in order to maximize both drawdown and pump intake pressure to enhance gas handling
performance in production wells. The production wells installed with ESP having a high water cut in excess of 69% and
high GOR at 1100 scf/STB are showing similar production behavior to other production wells having gas lift. In general,
the conversion to ESP has therefore improved production rates in high water cut wells. Gas separators and gas
handlers proved essential to achieving the drawdown targets despite the high GVFs, which would otherwise have
caused numerous shut-downs due to gas locking. In future production wells, the GOR and water cut trends and
expected high GVFs should be evaluated (Camilleri, et al., 2010).

An offshore carbonate oil field was developed by vertical and/or deviated oil producers and peripheral water injectors.
Soon after production starts, wells water cut gradually increased to reach 50% within 4-5 years with drastic decline in
oil production. ESPs were installed to improve production in general and to sustain production above 70% Water cut
level. It was also noticed that ESP installation did not drastically escalate water cut increasing trend in the wells as it
was believed earlier. In fact, water cut maintained the same increasing trend before and after ESP installation due to
the high productivity of the horizontal wells. High PI (~10-15 bb;/day/psi) wells tends to create less pressure drawdown
than low PI wells, therefore reducing water coning/channeling effect (Ibrahim, et al., 2009).

Well Data

Selected wells for each field were constructed to be used as the base case to allow comparison of alternative artificial
lift types. The input base case data for selected wells in each field are given in Table 1.

Table 1 Input data for each field

Field A Field B
Well Name Well - A1 Well - A2 Well - B1 Well - B2
Reservoir Pressure (psi) 4285 4380 3910 3660
Reservoir Temperature (°F) 260 260 275 275
9-5/8, 7, 4-
Casing size (OD, in) 9-5/8,7 9-5/8, 7 9-5/8, 7
1/2
Casing size at pump depth (ID, in) 7 7 7 7
Tubing size (OD, in) 3-1/2, 2-7/8 3-1/2 3-1/2 4-1/2, 3-1/2
Oil rate (bbl/day) 335 278 140 1235
WC (%) 76 80 78 53
GOR (scf/bbl) 630 720 720 700
FTHP psi) 400 360 400 490
PI (bbl/day/psi) 1.53 3.16 2.25 2.8
API (°) 37 37 40.9 39.2
SPE 131758 3

Bubble point pressure (psi) 2960 2960 3250 2940

Viscosity (cp) 0.48 0.48 0.35 0.38
CO2 (mole %) 0.0 0.0 3.02 0.0
N2 (mole %) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
H2S (mole %) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Gas Lift Performance Analysis

In Field A, Well - A1 and Well - A2 were selected for GL evaluation due to the high water cuts and low PI’s resulting in
reduced overall gas lift efficiency and instability. The current pressures and AL design bases are given in Figure 1 and
absolute flow rates and current flow rates are also given in Figure 2. Field A has a relatively lower bubble point
pressure. Both wells suffer from lift gas availability and high water cuts. Well - A1 is a low PI well and current
production rate is close to AOF. The well does not represent much upside for ESP application. The well is operating at
a flowing bottomhole pressure much higher the bubble point pressure. Well - A2 has a reasonably high PI and AOF.
Current liquid rate is low as the well is choked and is operating at a high FTHP. Consequently there is significant
locked in potential. The well is operating at well above the bubble point pressure.

In Field B, Well - B1 and Well - B2 were selected for GL evaluation due to the high water cuts and low PI’s resulting in
reduced overall gas lift efficiency and instability. The current pressures and AL design bases are given in Figure 3 and
absolute flow rates and current flow rates are also given in Figure 4. Field B has also a relatively lower bubble point
pressure. Both wells suffer from lift gas availability, instability and high water cuts. Well - B1 is a low PI well and current
production rate is below AOF. The well does have an ESP application. The well is operating at a flowing bottomhole
pressure much higher than the bubble point pressure, due to the shallow tubing punch at 5950 ft. The gas injection
depth was used as 9000 ft. Well - B2 has reasonably high PI and AOF. The current liquid rate is low as the well is
choked and is operating at a high FTHP. Consequently there is significant locked in potential. The well is operating at
above the bubble point pressure, due to high flowing wellhead pressure resulting from tubing instability.

5000

4500

4000

3500
Pressure, (psig)

3000

2500

2000
Design Case 1: FBHP=Pb-500
1500
Design Case 1: FBHP=Pb-

1000

500 Design Case 1: FBHP=Pb-

0
WELL-A1 WELL-A2
Bubble Point Pressure Reservoir Pressure FBHP

Figure 1 Current pressure and design cases for Field A wells

4 SPE 131758

12000 10

10000

Well Productivity Index, (bbl/d/psi)

8

7
8000
Liquid Rate (bbl/d)

6000 5

4000
3

2
2000

0 0
WELL-A1 WELL-A2
Current Liquid Rate Absolute Open Flow Rate Well Productivity Index

Figure 2 Current liquid rates at Field A wells

4500

4000

3500

3000
Pressure, (psig)

2500 Design Case 1: FBHP=Pb-500

2000 Design Case 2: FBHP=Pb-1000

1500

1000 Design Case 3: FBHP=Pb-2000

500

0
WELL-B1 WELL-B2
Bubble Point Pressure Reservoir Pressure FBHP

Figure 3 Current pressures an design cases for Field B wells

SPE 131758 5

7000 12

6000
10

Well Productivity Index, (bbl/d/psi)

5000
Liquid Rate, (bbl/d)

4000

3000

4
2000

2
1000

0 0
WELL-B1 WELL-B2
Current Liquid Rate Absolute Open Flow Rate Well Productivity Index

Figure 4 Current liquid rates at Field B wells

GL and ESP Design and Well Operating Envelopes

Gas Lift and ESPs were evaluated for the selected design ranges. A well operating envelope for selected wells in Field
A and Field B was specified to determine the range over ESP system was to be evaluated. The operating envelopes
provide the details of the life cycle scenarios to be modeled in the analysis phase of the study. It is assumed that gas
separation/handling technologies will be deployed together with ESPs to manage high free gas fractions at pump
depth.

The following lifecycle scenarios were used for GL and ESP modeling and analysis for Well - B1 and Well - B2 as
given in Table 2.

Table 2 Life cycle scenarios for Well – B1

Cycle Present Field Life Middle Field Life Late Field Life
Well Name Well - B1 Well - B2 Well - B1 Well - B2 Well - B1 Well - B2
Reservoir Pressure (psi) 3910 3660 3410 3160 2910 2660
Water Cut (%) 80 - 95 50 - 95 80 - 95 50 - 95 80 - 95 50 - 95
Total GOR (scf/stb) 750 700 750 700 1500 1400
Top Node Pressure (psi) 300 300 300 300 300 300

Lift Gas Utilisation

The potential of gas lift wells is controlled by the gas injection rate; optimum lift gas injection rates were established.
Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7 show the liquid rates against the lift gas injection rates at various water cuts and the
selected optimum lift gas injection rates for each scenario. Table 3 and Table 4 summarize the optimum liftgas rates
used in the simulations for Well - B1 and Well - B2.
6 SPE 131758

Figure 5 Optimum lift gas rates (Well - B1, Present Life, Pres = 3910 psi, Total GOR = 750 scf/bbl)

Figure 6 Optimum lift gas rates (Well - B1, Middle Field Life, Pres = 3410 psi, Total GOR = 750 scf/bbl)

Figure 7 Optimum lift gas rates (Well - B1, Late Field Life, Pres = 2910 psi, Total GOR = 1500 scf/bbl)
SPE 131758 7

Table 3 Optimum liftgas injection rates (Well – B1)

Present Field Life Middle Field Life Late Field Life

Cycle Pr = 3910 psi Pr = 3410 psi Pr = 2910 psi
GOR = 750 scf/bbl GOR = 750 scf/bbl GOR = 1500 scf/bbl
WC (%) 80 95 80 95 80 95
Gas Injection Rate (MMscf/day) 4 4 4 4 4 4
Gas Injection Pressure (psi) 2600

Table 4 Optimum liftgas injection rates (Well – B2)

Present Field Life Middle Field Life Late Field Life

Cycle Pr = 3660 psi Pr = 3160 psi Pr = 2660 psi
GOR = 700 scf/bbl GOR = 700 scf/bbl GOR = 1400 scf/bbl
WC (%) 50 95 50 95 50 95
Gas Injection Rate (MMscf/day) 4 6 3 5 3 6
Gas Injection Pressure (psi) 2600

ESP vs GL Performances

Well - B1

In order to determine the most suitable method for Well – B1, simulations have been performed modeling the
scenarios given in Table 2. A summary of the results for present and late life of the well are given in Figure 8. The
estimated GL and ESP liquid rates for various design cases (FBHP = 2754 psi), (FBHP = 2254 psi) and (FBHP = 1254
psi) and water cuts are presented in Figure 9, Figure 10 and Figure 11. ESP performs better than GL for the present,
middle life and late life of the well for design cases.

Figure 8 Summary Results for Present and Late Life of Well - B1

8 SPE 131758

Field B - Well - B1
3000
PRESENT MIDDLE LATE
Pr = 3910 psi Pr = 3410 psi Pr = 2910 psi
GOR = 750 scf/bbl GOR = 750 scf/bbl GOR = 1500 scf/bbl
2500

Produced Liquid Rate (bbl/day)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
80 95 80 95 80 95
Water cut (%)
GL Target Rate (FBHP=2754 psi) ESP (FBHP=2754 psi)

Figure 9 GL and ESP liquid rates for Well - B1 (Target FBHP = 2754 psi)

Field B - Well - B1
4000
PRESENT MIDDLE LATE
Pr = 3910 psi Pr = 3410 psi Pr = 2910 psi
3500 GOR = 750 scf/bbl GOR = 750 scf/bbl GOR = 1500 scf/bbl

3000
Produced Liquid Rate (bbl/day)

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
80 95 80 95 80 95
Water Cut (%)
GL Target Rate (FBHP=2254 psi) ESP (FBHP = 2254 psi)

Figure 10 GL and ESP liquid rates for Well – B1 (Target FBHP = 2254 psi)

Field B - Well - B1
7000
PRESENT MIDDLE LATE
Pr = 3910 psi Pr = 3410 psi Pr = 2910 psi
GOR = 750 scf/bbl GOR = 750 scf/bbl GOR = 1500 scf/bbl
6000
Produced Liquid Rate (bbl/day)

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
80 95 80 Water Cut (%) 95 80 95
GL Target Rate (FBHP=1254 psi) ESP (FBHP=1254 psi)

Figure 11 GL and ESP liquid rates for Well – B1 (Target FBHP = 1254 psi)
SPE 131758 9

The analyses show that in Well – B1:

• ESPs can match the well performance of gas lift under current operating conditions and with FBHPs at or
above below bubble point.
• ESPs can outperform gas lift and achieve an upside when the water cut increases, provided that FBHPs well
below the bubble point pressure are allowed and that there is no productivity impact because of the resulting
gas saturation increases in the near wellbore area.

Well - B2

In order to determine the most suitable method for Well – B2, simulations have been performed modeling the
scenarios given in Table 2. A summary of the results for present and late life of the well are given in Figure 12. The
estimated GL and ESP liquid rates for various design cases (FBHP = 2441 psi), (FBHP = 1941 psi) and (FBHP = 941
psi) and water cuts are presented in Figure 13, Figure 14 and Figure 15.

Figure 12 Summary Results for Present and Late Life of Well - B2

Field B - Well - B2
4000
PRESENT MIDDLE LATE
Pr = 3660 psi Pr = 3160 psi Pr = 2660 psi
GOR = 700 scf/bbl GOR = 700 scf/bbl GOR = 1400 scf/bbl
3500

3000
Produced Liquid Rate (bbl/day)

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
50 95 50 95 50 95
Water Cut (%)
GL Target Rate (FBHP=2441 psi) ESP (FBHP=2441 psi)

Figure 13 GL and ESP liquid rates for Well - B1 (Target FBHP = 2754 psi)
10 SPE 131758

Field B - Well - B2
4000
PRESENT MIDDLE LATE
Pr = 3660 psi Pr = 3160 psi Pr = 2660 psi
GOR = 700 scf/bbl GOR = 700 scf/bbl GOR = 1400 scf/bbl
3500

3000

Produced Liquid Rate (bbl/day)

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
50 95 50 95 50 95
Water Cut (%)
GL Target Rate (FBHP=2441 psi) ESP (FBHP=2441 psi)

Figure 14 GL and ESP liquid rates for Well - B1 (Target FBHP = 2754 psi)

Field B - Well - B2
8000

PRESENT MIDDLE LATE

Pr = 3660 psi Pr = 3160 psi Pr = 2660 psi
7000 GOR = 700 scf/bbl GOR = 700 scf/bbl GOR = 1400 scf/bbl

6000
Produced Liquid Rate (bbl/day)

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
50 95 50 95 50 95
Water Cut (%)
GL Target Rate (FBHP=941 psi) ESP (FBHP=941 psi)

Figure 15 GL and ESP liquid rates for Well - B1 (Target FBHP = 2754 psi)

In present and middle life scenarios, ESP performs better than GL for all design cases. ESP matches gas lift
performance or exceeds gas lift in the late life of the well, when FBHP = 1941 psi and 941 psi at WC = 50 % and 95 %.
When the water cut increases to 95 % in the present and middle life of the well, ESP performs better than GL. ESP
performs better than GL for FBHP = 1941 psi and FBHP = 941 psi cases.

The analyses show that in Well – B2:

• ESPs can match the well performance with gas lift under current operating conditions and with FBHPs at or
above bubble point.
• ESPs can outperform gas lift and achieve an upside provided that FBHPs well below the bubble point pressure
are allowed and that there is no productivity impact because of the resulting gas saturation increases in the
near wellbore area.
SPE 131758 11

Conclusions

For all design cases for Well - B1 and Well - B2:

• The qualitative evaluations were made for ESPs. ESP is the proposed artificial lift method for the selected gas
lifted wells. For all design cases, ESPs can match or exceed the GL performance in the evaluated present,
middle and late life cases for the candidate wells.
• ESP matches GL in present conditions.
• ESPs outperform GL in middle and late life cases when water cuts are high (50 – 90%).
• Upside potential is available if FBHPs well below the bubble point pressure are allowed and if there is no
productivity impact because of the resulting gas saturation increases in the near wellbore area.
• The use of ESP for a gas lifted well is an excellent example of production system optimization. This
demonstrates how a different type of artificial lift can be effectively used to improve the productivity of a well
that uses one type of artificial lift.

References

Camilleri, L.A.P., Bancui, T. and Ditoiu, G., “First Installation of 5 ESPs Offshore Romania – A Case Study and
Lessons Learned”, SPE Intelligent Energy Conference and Exhibition, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 23-25 March 2010.

Ibrahim, A., Al Massabi, A., Bellah, S. and Al Hashemi, M., “Challenges in Operation and Developing Strong Bottom
Water Drive Reservoir. A Case History”, SPE Paper 125466, SPE/EAGE Reservoir Characterization and Simulation
Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 19-21 October 2009.