SIMULATION OF ELECTRIC SUBMERSIBLE PUMP PERFORMANCE
ON ESP DESIGN AND GAS LIFT
Selvi Amalia (1801107) M.Fahrie.R.H (1801106)Bagus Pribadi (1801088)
Petroleum Engineering B 2018,STT Migas Balikpapan
ABSTRACT
Electrical Submersible Pumping (ESP)
works by giving additional pressure to the
reservoir fluids, so it can flow to the surface.
While Gas Lift is an Artificial Lift method is
done by injecting the gas at high pressure
into the well through the casing annulus and
into the tubbing.
One of the most popular failure modes of
ESP pump units in Iranian offshore fields is
the variation of well production conditions
regardless of bottom bore pump
performance and operating conditions. This
will result in operating the pump beyond its
pre-designed range which not only results in
higher horsepower requirements and power
consumption but also increases pump thrust
and vibration which will result in initial
failure of the pumping system which
contributes to increased capital expenditure
(CAPEX) and operational expenditure
(OPEX). The ESP pump unit was installed
at one low production well in Iran's X
offshore reservoir one year ago.
Investigations of the performance of these
pumps show that they are not operating at
optimal current ranges.
This study aims to evaluate different
technical and economic aspects by modeling
and simulating dynamic well conditions. To
match the real well test data with the First
simulation, the Prosper software from the
IPM package was used. The new ESP
optimized design features a considerable
increase in pump life as well as a reduction
in OPEX and CAPEX.
INTRODUCTION
Electrical Submersible Pumping (ESP) and
Gas Lift are artificial lifting techniques
(Artificial Lift) that are widely used in the
petroleum world. Artificial lifting technique
is one of the efforts used to lift fluids in
production wells which are no longer
economical if they are produced or cannot
be produced naturally (natural flow).
The success of the ESP designed system is
one of the most important features in the
field the development of using the artificial
lift method which leads to the reduction of
the CAPEX of this artificial lift method by
preventing initial failure and also reduces
power consumption (OPEX). Since the
reservoir and well conditions vary over the
production time period, the first optimum of
the design can be changed to an inefficient
design now and from a technical and
economic point of view the appearance
needs to be optimized. So, in order to have a
system design profitability during
production, the pump efficiency must be
monitored in such a way that the system
pump operation is always within the
efficiency recommended by the pump
manufacturer. That means this task must be
accomplished by systematic consideration of
the reservoir, well and ESP system and
changing the operating points of these
interconnected systems so that pump
operation is within the pump operating
range. The parameters that state the
productivity of the formation are
Productivity Index (PI) and Inflow
Performance Relationship (IPR).
METHODOLOGY
The ESP system is modeled using Prosper
software to analyze performance, diagnose
problems and identify opportunities for
production and performance optimization to
achieve the most suitable ESP pump. In this
section investigate the performance of the
inflow and outflow of the wells with the
system approach. analysis is covered.
The main inputs to the calculation are as
follows:
• PVP parameters and tables
• Reservoir parameters and properties
including (but not limited to) reservoir
pressure and temperature, WCUT, GOR, k,
h, drainage area, skin, perm anisotropy, PI,
perf. Hose.
• Well hydraulics includes (but is not limited
to) all depths and measurements of
geothermal tubes, casings, liners, gradients.
• Pressure data including FWHP and WHT,
FBHP, test pressure gradient point, test
velocity and so on. The following
methodology has been carried out step by
step:
• Flow performance modeling
• Description of the inflow model
• Description of the Outflow model
• Match real well test data with simulation
data
• Check the performance of the existing well
pump
• Technical and economical optimization of
ESP Operations
• Redesign the ESP pump if necessary
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Well performance parameters obtained from
the well model indicate that the ESP pump is
this well operating within its operating range
(down-thrust conditions) and the pump
operating efficiency is only 0% of maximum
possible efficiency. The resulting well
performance curve and the pressure profile
obtained from the ESP are well tuned the
model is presented as follows;
Table 1
Thereservoirand wellbore properties for IPRdata

Table 2.
PVT properties of threservoirfluid
Table 3
Deviation survey
Table 4 Downhole equipment
Table 5 Geothermal gradient
Picture 1. IPR curve of the well
The results obtained from the program
output calculations Prosper are the
following types of pumps, motors, and
cables
• Pump :
CENTRILIFT KC12000 5.62 inches
(9500-
14500 RB / day)
• Motorcycle :
Centrilift 562 660HP 3870V 105A
• Cable :
# 1 Copper 0.26 (Volts / 1000ft)
115 (amps) max
Pumps, motors and cables are
selected from the database showing
the maximum performance. In
selecting the pump type, the test
point should be as close as possible
to the best efficiency line, that is, to
the blue line. Also select a pump
which must be capable of producing
a range at below average bore rates.

Picture 2. IPR vs VLP of the well without any
artificial support
ESP optimization carried out at well R
consists of several ways, including:
1. Using a variable speed drive on the
pump to improve production
optimization by changing the
frequency (pump rotation speed).
2. Increase the number of stages at
the actual 55 Hz frequency used in
the ESP pump to increase the
pressure and velocity of the fluid
from the perforation to the surface
resulting in a large flow rate.
3. Evaluate the installed pump
capacity by adjusting it to the flow
rate that the pump can generate.
By using the PROSPER software
program, the IPR curve of the well was
obtained before the Artificial Lift was
carried out in the form of ESP which
had a maximum flow rate of 20920.4
(STB / day), and a PI Formation of
3.19 (STB / day / psi).
Picture 3. Performance curve of the
ESP for the well
PROSPER calculates the ESP system
analysis on the discharge of the pump
(pump outlet). Figure 4 shows that the
inflow performance curve is represented by
a blue curve showing the bottom of the well.
The pump discharge pressure is represented
by a green curve. And the vertical lifting
performance curve is shown by the red
curve. The red and green intersecting each
other means that the well is flowing and
producing some fluid.
Picture 4 . Pump discharge pressure vs.
VLP pressure of the well
Next Artificial Lift is Gas Lift. To design a
Gas Lift model requires some data, among
others maximum liquid rate, maximum gas
available, flowing top node pressure,
unloading top node pressure, maximum
depth of injection, operating injection
pressure, kickoff injection pressure, desired
dP across valve, water cut, minimum
spacing, total GOR and etc.
From the known data, then input into the
PROSPER program to be seen and analyzed
from the Gas Lift performance curve in the
well.
Picture 5. Performance curve of the ESP
for the well
The performance curve shows the
relationship between the volumes of gas
injection to the oil produced. This graph is
used to select the optimum gas injection
rates where maximum oil production can be
obtained.
CONCUSION AND WAY FORWARD
• Operation of an ESP pump in up-thrust or
down-thrust conditions will not only cause
Initial failure of the pump but will lead to a
significant increase in this artificial OPEX
lifting method.
• Since variations in reservoir and well
conditions will occur during well production
time, the performance and efficiency of the
ESP must be monitored appropriately so as
not to lie within the best pump operating
range during pump operating time.
• Optimization of the operation of the ESP
system will reduce the total cost of this
artificial method as well as decrease its
operating costs.
• Technical Optimization of ESP operation
must be combined with economic evaluation
to produce the most feasible and economical
operation.
• Economic evaluation shows that the Cost
Savings Due to Optimization will be $
566,074 over a 6 month period of work.
REFERENCE
1. Rouen, B 2003. What you always
wanted to know about gas lift and
Presented at the ALRDC Gas Well
Deliquification Workshop, Denver,
February.
2. Elmer, W. 2018. Preventing High
Separator Level Events Without
Sacrificing Well Performance.
Presented at the ALRDC Artificial
Lift Strategies for Unconventional
Wells Workshop, Oklahoma City, 4-
7 February
3. D.W. Kimery, J.C. Saponja, R.C. Ch
achula, C.JensenBreaking the 800
Psi ESP PIP Barrier: How A Proven
Flow-Conditioning Technology Can
Dramatically Improve ESP
Performance in Horizontal Wells
Society of Petroleum
Engineers (2017),
4. S.C. Kennedy, Z.T. Madrazo, C. Rhi
nehart, B.Hill, C.M. Grimm, C. Smit
hNew ESP Gas Separator for
Slugging Horizontal Wells
 Society of Petroleum
Engineers (2017),
5. R.v. FlaternThe Defining Series:
Electrical Submersible Pumps (2015)
6. EOGhoniem, et al., Optimization of
Dynamic Production in the Offshore
Fields of Khafji, SPE Paper 101388
presented at the 2006 and Abu Dhabi
International Oil Fair Conference
held in Abu Dhabi, UAE (2006) 5-8
7. AMFuladgar, H. Ghobadi, B.Samani,
Simulation, Design & Performance
Optimization Electric Submersible
Pump Installed at one of the NISOC
Wells, Exploration & Journal of Oil
& Gas Production, 98 (2013) 19-30