CP-214 2013 ESP Life-Cycle Management Code of Practice

Petroleum Development Oman L.L.C.
ESP Life-Cycle Management

Code of Practice
Document ID CP-214
Document Type Code of Practice
Security Restricted
Discipline Petroleum Engineering (UPD) / Production Tecnology (UPT)
Owner Ali Al Gheithy / Rahima Mujaini
st
Issue Date 1 August 2013
Version 01
Keywords: This document is the property of Petroleum Development Oman, LLC. Neither the whole nor any
part of this document may be disclosed to others or reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in
any form by any means (electronic, mechanical, reprographic recording or otherwise) without prior written
consent of the owner.
Revision: 01
Petroleum Development Oman LLC Effective: Aug-13
This page was intentionally left blank
Page 2 'CP-214' - ESP Life Cycle Management CoP Printed 001/10/15

The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink®. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 01
i Document Authorisation
Authorised For Issue

Revision: 01
ii Revision History
The following is a brief summary of the 4 most recent revisions to this document. Details of all
revisions prior to these are held on file by the issuing department.
Version No. Date Author Scope / Remarks

01 1/8/13 J.W. Brinkhorst (UPT) First issue
iii Related Business Processes

Code Business Process (EPBM 4.0)
EP.63 Design, Drill, Modify, Service and Abandon Well
EP.71 Produce hydrocarbons
EP.72 Maintain & Assure Facilities Integrity
iv Related Corporate Management Frame Work (CMF) Documents

The related CMF Documents can be retrieved from the Corporate Business Control Documentation
Register CMF.
CP-114 Maintenance and Integrity Management - CoP

CP-118 Well Life Cycle Integrity
CP-125 Petroleum Engineering Management - CoP
CP-136 Planning in PDO - CoP
CP-139 Corporate Data Management - CoP
CP-178 Well Delivery - CoP

Revision: 01
TABLE OF CONTENTS
i Document Authorisation ..............................................................................................................3
ii Revision History...........................................................................................................................4
iii Related Business Processes .......................................................................................................4
iv Related Corporate Management Frame Work (CMF) Documents..............................................4
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................7
1.1 Background .................................................................................................................................7
1.2 Purpose .......................................................................................................................................7
1.3 Target Audience ..........................................................................................................................7
1.4 Document Review and Change Control ......................................................................................7
1.5 Governance .................................................................................................................................8
1.6 Structure of this Document ..........................................................................................................8
2. ESP Life Cycle Management ......................................................................................................9
2.1 The ESP Life Cycle .......................................................................................................................9
2.2 Key Life Cycle Phases.................................................................................................................9
2.2.1 Data ....................................................................................................................................10
2.2.2 Design ................................................................................................................................10
2.2.3 Planning and Installation. ...................................................................................................10
2.2.4 Operate (monitor, optimise & maintain) .............................................................................10
2.2.5 Intervention / Repair ...........................................................................................................11
2.2.6 Failure Analysis ..................................................................................................................11
2.2.7 Contract Management .......................................................................................................11
2.3 Life Cycle Support Processes ...................................................................................................11
2.3.1 Strategies ...........................................................................................................................11
2.3.2 Health-checks ....................................................................................................................12
2.3.3 Data Base & Data Quality ..................................................................................................12
2.3.4 Workflow Processes ..........................................................................................................12
2.3.5 Standards and Procedures ................................................................................................12
2.3.6 Capability & Training ..........................................................................................................12
2.3.7 Technology Evaluation .......................................................................................................13
2.3.8 Technology Implementation ...............................................................................................13
3. Principle Roles & Responsibilities .............................................................................................14
3.1 The ESP R&R Matrix .................................................................................................................14
3.2 The ESP Subject Matter Expert ................................................................................................14
3.3 The Production Technologist .....................................................................................................15
3.4 The Production Programmer / Field Programmer / Operations .................................................15
3.5 The Contract Holder (CH) ..........................................................................................................15
3.6 The Application Engineer (AE) ..................................................................................................16

Revision: 01
3.7 The Company Site Representative (CSR).................................................................................16

3.8 Business Support Engineer .......................................................................................................17
3.9 The Vendor Desk Engineer (DE) ...............................................................................................17
4. Contract Management Support Structure..................................................................................18
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................18
4.2 Organizational Structure ............................................................................................................18
5. Data Management .....................................................................................................................19
5.1 The Artificial Lift Data Base (ALD) .............................................................................................19
5.2 ESP Performance KPI’s ............................................................................................................19
5.3 Data Management Support .......................................................................................................19
5.4 Data Input Performance Tracking .............................................................................................20
6. Capability ...................................................................................................................................22
6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................22
6.2 Staff Development Options .......................................................................................................22
6.3 Skills and Competencies Matrix ................................................................................................23
6.4 Learning and Development Ladder ............................................................................................23
6.5 Theme Focus Group (TFG) .........................................................................................................23
6.5.1 Objective of the TFG................................................................................................23
6.5.2 Membership of the TFG ...........................................................................................24
Appendix A .............................................................................................................................................25
Appendix B .............................................................................................................................................28
Appendix C .............................................................................................................................................30

Revision: 01
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
Managing ‘Artificial Lift’ in PDO is a key business activity which ensures well fluids are optimally
lifted to surface and subsequently transported to the facilities. The organisation required to manage
this process is relatively complex due to the significant number of steps involved in the Artificial Lift
Life-cycle and the number of interfaces between the various departments involved.
Clarity regarding the organisational support structure and the roles and responsibilities of those
involved is essential for optimally managing the Artificial Lift life-cycle process and hence this
Code of Practice has been written.
1.2 Purpose
‘Artificial Lift’ consists of a number of different lift-systems, the management of which all have their
own processes and organisational support. The different lift systems are:
1. Electrical Submessible Pumpming (ESP)
2. Rod Pumpimg (RP)
i. Beam Pumping (BP)
ii. Progressive Cavity Pumping (PCP)
3. Gas-lifting (GL)
This Code of Practice will cover the process of Electical Submersible Pumping, with separate
CoP’s to be written for Rod Pumping and Gas-lifting
The purpose of this Code of Practice is to specify the processes, the support organisation, the roles
and responsibilities of key staff involved and the controls necessary to ensure effective
management of the Electrical Submersible Pump Life-cycle. The CoP will also address the skills
required at each level of experience and how these can be achieved. Furthermore overall
Functional accountability for ESP’s, which resides with the Production Technology Function
Discipline Head, is explained
1.3 Target Audience
This Code of Practice (CP-214) is directed towards all parties engaged in the ESP Life-cycle
Management Process, i.e. the Design, Construction, Modification, Monitoring, Maintenance,
Operation and Repair of of both the subsurface and surface components of ESP lift systems in
PDO. Key parties are staff in Petroleum Engineering (PT’s), Well Engineering (Well Services and
ESP Contract Management - UWA) and Operations (Production Pogrammers, Field Programmers)
1.4 Document Review and Change Control
This CoP shall be reviewed on a regular basis (not less than every four years) by the Document
Custodian to guarantee that it reflects current requirements and practices. The CFDH for
Production Technology (UPT) is responsible for this Code of Practice. Overall responsibility for the
ESP Life Cycle Management Process lies with the Petroleum Engineering Functional Director
(UPD). The CFDH (or nominated person) shall carry out document reviews and updates.
Document changes are managed through a formal Document Review and Approval Process
described above with any changes signed off formally by the Petroleum Engineering Functional
Director.

Revision: 01
1.5 Governance
To ensure that the ESP Life-Cycle is managed as per this Code of Practice, it is essential that the
organisation puts a Governance Structure in place. With the many departments and interfaces
inlvolved this is essential to ensure continuous alignment and improvement. Operational
Performance, Business Improvement Proposals, Contractual Challenges and Organisational
Issues are key topics to be addressed at regular intervals. At Cluster level ESP Operational
Performance reviews should take place at least once a month, whilst at Directorate level this
should take place at least once every Quarter. Pan PDO ESP related issues (Organisational,
Contractual) can be addressed at WRFM Steering Committee level or at Petroleum Engineering
Leadership Team (PELT) level or escalated to Technical Director’s Group (TDG) level.
1.6 Structure of this Document
This CoP describes in detail

o the ESP Life-cycle Management Process,
o the Life-Cycle Support Processes,
o the Roles and Responsibilities of all key staff involved,
o ESP Contract Management
o ESP Data Management
o the Capability required to manage the Life-Cycle.

Revision: 01
2. ESP Life Cycle Management

2.1 The ESP Life Cycle
Due to the involvement of many parties and a significant number of associated interfaces, it
is essential that there is a clear understanding of what management of the ESP Life-Cycle
entails.
Figure 2.1 presents a simplified process flow diagram depicting the distinctive phases within
the Life-cycle (ie. Data, Design, Planning/ Installation, Operate (Monitor / Optimise /
Maintain), Intervene and Failure Analysis). The life-cycle supporting processes, such as
defining Strategies, performing Health-checks, maintaining standards and procedures, etc,
are required to ensure continuous optimization, quality control and assurance of the life-cycle
process
This document will primarily address the interfaces and work practices of the departments
involved in the design, installation and optimization of the Electrical Submersible Pump and
not so much the day-to-day running of the pump. Each of these work practices will be
addressed in short. The Roles and Responsibilities discussion in Chapter 3 will provide
further details of the activity steps underpinning ESP Life Cycle Management.
AE = Application Engineer (PDO)

DE = Desk Engineer (Vendor)
ESP Life Cycle CSR = Company Site Rep. (PDO)

FE = Field Engineer (Vendor)
CH = Contract Holder (PDO)
FP = Field Programmer (PDO)
Xxxx (in red) = accountable
PP = Production Programmer (PDO)
Xxxx (in black) = key responsible or support UWX = Well Services (PDO)
UPT ESPSME / UWA
Strategy
UPT Health-Check ESPSME / UWA

Process Improvements
PT PT UWA FP UWX
Planning &
AL Data Design Operate Intervention
Installation
PT, UWAX / UPM4 PT, AE, CH, DE UWX, DE, FE, AE, CSR, PT FP, PP, FE, DE,CSR, PT UWX, PT, DE, CSR, FE
PT UWA PP Ops
Failure Analysis Contracts Monitor Maintain

FP, PT, FE, UEOA FP, FE, CSR
AE, PT, CSR CH, AE, DE, CSR, FE
UPT Data Base / Data Quality UWA / PT / UPM4
UPT ESPSME / UPM4

Work Flow Processes
UPT ESPSME / UWA

Standards & Procedures
UPT ESPSME / UWA
Training
UPT ESPSME
Technology Evaluation
UPT ESPSME / TFG
Techn. Implementation
Figure 2.1, ESP Life-cycle Management Processes
rd
Note that in this document the ‘3 party ESP provider’ is either referred to as ‘the Vendor’ or
‘the Contractor’.
2.2 Key Life Cycle Phases
This section describes the key phases that make up the ESP Life Cycle.

Revision: 01
2.2.1 Data
The gathering of data, as input into the design of the ESP, is the responsibility of the
Production Technologist (PT). There is an ongoing effort (2013) to ensure these data can be
retrieved more efficiently and with a degree of quality. The data are handed over to the ESP
contractor who will create an initial design.
2.2.2 Design
The Production Technologist is accountable for the final design of the ESP. The Application
Engineer in the Contract Management Department UWA ensures the detailed technical
design is optimal, ie. verifies the design operating envelope is met, whilst the Contract Holder
verifies whether the proposed design meets the specifications as set out in the Contract with
the ESP Contractor in question
2.2.3 Planning and Installation.
Proposal: The Planning of an ESP installation starts with the writing of an intervention
proposal by the PT in which he/she specifies the Artificial Lift requirements for the well (eg.
ESP Like for Like replacement); the proposal also has a more detailed ESP design from the
Vendor attached.
Plan & Schedule: Once approved (via the well intervention planning tool - WSAM), the
intervention Proposal allows the ESP installation activity to be scheduled on the hoist
sequence and Well Services (CWI) will then write an Intervention Programme, which details
the ESP installation activity
Installation: during the installation of an ESP in a well (particularly in the more critical wells),
the Contract Site Representative (CSR) should be on-site to monitor the activity from start to
finish to provide ESP equipment logistical support, to verify whether installation procedures
are followed by both PDO and ESP Contractor and to assess, on behalf of the Applications
Engineer, whether future installations can be further optimized. The CSR should witness as
many installations as possible, be it on new ESP wells or exsiting wells with planned ESP
replacements. The Application Engineer should also make frequent field visits to verify the
operation in support of the CSR.
2.2.4 Operate (monitor, optimise & maintain)
Commissioning: Once the new ESP has been installed, surface hook-up and commissioning
will take place; if possible this activity should also be witnessed by the CSR as the CSR has to
approve the final Commissioning Report raised by the ESP Contractor after the event.
Opening Up: the well opening-up programme forms a critical part of the ESP life-cycle as it
specifies the bean-up steps required during the initial start-up phase of the ESP. For instance
a too aggressive ESP start-up could cause early ESP failure due to solids overload as a result
of excessive bottom-hole drawdown. The PT, who has a good understanding of the well
drawdown / off-take limitations, writes the opening up programme, which should be done in
consultation with the Production Programmer to ensure alignment on the objectives of the
opening up activity. The actual start-up of the ESP will be conducted by the ESP Contractor
Field Engineer under supervision of the Operations Field Programmer. A follow-up ESP site
check will be carried out by the Field Programmer (FP) or CSR within one week of start-up.
Monitor: day to day monitoring of the performance of the ESP is carried out by the Field
Programmer with support from the Production Programmer. Monitoring has been made easier
since the introduction of the Exception Based Surveillance (EBS) functionality in the NIBRAS
Production Portal. If the ESP operates outside its set Operating Envelope, the Field

Revision: 01
Programmer gets a system warning, which requires the FP to perform a diagnosis of the
problem.
Optimise: If the identified problem or optimisation opportunity is surface related the

Production Programmer will initiate a surface correction or optimisation activity. In most
instances these will be performed by the ESP Contractor Field Engineer supported by Field
Operations (eg. Field Programmer or Operations Maintenance).
2.2.5 Intervention / Repair
If the identified problem (eg. complete ESP failure) or optimisation opportunity (eg. pre-failure
pull or PPR) is sub-surface, in the majority of cases the ESP will need to be pulled from the
well. The process will then be identical to the process described earlier under ‘Planning and
Installation’. Once pulled, inspected and shipped back to the yard, the decision needs to be
made whether the pump will go for a full teardown. This will by coordinated by the CSR in
consultation with the Application Engineer and the PT.
2.2.6 Failure Analysis
Managing the failure analysis of an ESP, which includes the scheduling and witnessing of the
tear-down and performing a Root Cause Analysis (RCA), if required, is the responsibility of
the Application Engineer (AE) in UWA. The AE will follow up on improvements, defines buy-
out/buy back, penalties and bonuses and will ensure the findings are properly documented
and the related data are stored in the Artificial Lift Data base (ALD). The AE needs to ensure
the PT responsible for the well/ESP in question is at all times informed of the progress made
and should ensure the PT has the option to be part of the ‘failure analysis’ process.
2.2.7 Contract Management
The ESP Contract Management section (UWA) is part of the Well Engineering Department
and has the same remit as any other sub-surface Contract Support section in Well
Engineering (eg. Perforating, Open Hole Logging, etc). The purpose of the section is to
provide Contract support to the Sub-surface Community in managing PDO’s ESP portfolio.
However, given the large number of ESP wells, the significant cost of Contracts involved, and
the fact that the application is strongly Contractor dependent, the UWA section has a more
structured and staff intensive set-up to manage these ESP Contracts. Chapter 3 and 4 will
provide more details regarding the organizational set-up and the roles involved.
2.3 Life Cycle Support Processes
This section describes the key functions and processes that support the ESP Life Cycle
2.3.1 Strategies
PDO’s Discipline Head Production Technology is accountable for the complete process of
ESP life-cycle management. On behalf of the Production Technology Function the ESP
Technical Expert (TE) or ESP Subject Matter Expert (SME), if accredited as such, will be
responsible to set out the ESP Lift Strategy for the Company. As the Strategy might require
change-out to different lift systems at some stage in the future, the ESP TE needs to make
sure that the TE/ SME’s of the other lift types (eg. Rod Pumping and Gas Lifting) are also
involved in any strategy planning or optimization. Furthermore the TE ‘s have to ensure that all
relevant Line and Support parties are involved at all times to ensure the ultimate Strategy has
full buy-in.

Revision: 01
2.3.2 Health-checks
It is the responsibility of the ESP TE/SME to ensure that regular health-checks are carried out
on the various assets to verify whether the ESP management process is understood and
adequately adhered to. These health-checks could lead to further process improvements,
which then need to be formalized in this ESP Code of Practice. UWA plays an important part
in these health-checks and thus has to be engaged in all cases. The frequency of health-
checks is left at the discretion of the TE/SME, but should not extend beyond once every 5
years. Alternatively the health-checks could be replaced by an internal / external pan-PDO
ESP process audit with the same frequency as indicated before.
2.3.3 Data Base & Data Quality
The original Artificial Lift Data Base (ALD) that was constructed in 2001 for managing ESP
Contracts has now (ie. in 2013) been expanded to include contract process flow management
(and associated compliance KPI’s) and ESP performance KPI’s (eg. Run-life). The overall
accountability for maintaining and improving this data-base lies with the PT Discipline Head
(UPT), with strong support from the ESP contract management department (UWA) through the
UWA Business Support section (as ESP Data Custodian) and the Subsurface Data Office,
which is represented by the PT Data Owner (UPM4). Mapping the process of capturing the
(raw) ESP data till the data are QA/QC’d and stored in the Data Base, is the responsibility of
UPM4. UPM4 will provide regular updates of how this process is performing and will advise on
further improvements if so required. Input of the majority of actual ESP data into the Data
Base is the responsibility of the ESP contractor and the UWA sections with some of the UWA
sections having to verify compliance (see Figure 5.1 in Chapter 5)
2.3.4 Workflow Processes
The ESP Life-Cycle Management process relies on a significant number of key stakeholders
and implicitly a variety of different interfaces. This Code of Practice aims to provide clarity
around who is involved and how the identified parties inter-act. Continuous improvement of
this process is essential to ensure continuous business improvement aiming to run ESP’s for
optimal production (ie. Extended Run-life x optimum operating point) at the lowest possible
cost. The ESP TE/SME supported by UPM4 will at regular intervals review the ESP workflow
process to ensure it is functioning at its optimum. The use of the LEAN process in establishing
optimum functionality is essential.
2.3.5 Standards and Procedures
The ESP TE/SME and UWA are responsible for putting ESP standards and procedures in
place; they also need to ensure that these are kept up to date. For reference, a typical
procedure could be the ‘running and retrieval of the ESP’ or ‘the start-up procedure of an ESP’
(Hyperlink); a repository for these standards and procedures should be available and
accessible to all staff at all times.
2.3.6 Capability & Training
In support of UPT, the ESP TE/SME is primarily responsible for the competence of all staff
involved in managing the ESP lifecycle. For those areas that concern the Contract
management part of the process, UWA will provide essential support in the capability building
and assurance process. The ESP training ladder needs to be regularly updated to capture the
latest training modules and courses available. Specific ESP courses, both theoretical and ‘on-
the-job’, are organized either by the training center, HLD, or by the ESP SME. The ESP SME
will also conduct level 1 to level 3 ESP classes, if so required. In addition, capability
assessment is also the responsibility of the ESP SME; the actual assessments can be carried
out by suitable assessors, appointed by the SME.
Revision: 01
2.3.7 Technology Evaluation
Technology evaluation is the responsibility of the ESP TE/SME, which means that he or she
will identify alternative lift equipment or methods, which could potentially replace the standard
ESP currently in use, allowing more efficient fluid lifting. In cooperation with PDO’s New
Technology department and the assets, a justification for trialing the identified technology will
be raised through a New Technology CTR Form (Hyperlink) and potential trial candidates (ie.
Wells) will be selected. For further details please refer to CP-198, the CoP for New technology
Introduction. Within the confines of the existing ESP contracts, UWA staff can also propose
improvements to surface and subsurface equipment. This needs to be discussed and agreed
with both asset and SME to ensure full alignment before the trial is approved.
2.3.8 Technology Implementation
Once the trial has been approved, it is the responsibility of the PT assigned to the trial area, to
prepare a detailed trial proposal; support in preparing the Proposal will be provided by the
Vendor in question, the SME and UWA. The well services operations engineer will then
prepare the detailed intervention / installation Programme, also with help from the above
mentioned support functions, when and where required. It is strongly recommended that a
PDO representative will be on-site during the trial execution, preferably the PT, but otherwise
the SME, a senior Application Engineer or a senior CSR. First-hand account of the activities
by a PDO representative is essential when preparing a post trial report as the results of this
trial (combined with the results of other similar trials) could have a significant impact when
deciding on future pan-PDO implementation.

Revision: 01
3. Principle Roles & Responsibilities
3.1 The ESP R&R Matrix
In 2011 an extensive exercise was carried out to put together a detailed Roles and
Responsibilities (R&R) matrix for ESP management. With input from key stakeholders the
process steps were mapped in detail with responsible parties assigned to each step. Unlike
the usual RASCI matrix this time the only tasks assigned were those for the ‘Responsible’
party (ie. the one that actually has to ensure the task is performed) and the ‘Support’ party or
parties (ie. those that have a supporting role in some form or another). Accountabilities are
indicated separately. The complete matrix can be found in Appendix A. A short extract is
provided below:
Table 3.1, Extract from ESP Roles and Responsibilities Matrix
Roles & Responsibilities for ESP's

Responsible Account PE Line Ops and Maintenance Engineering Weng UWA C&P Vendor
Ph TE / OXO OXO OXE RTO/U WE Data
.# Phases Activity ESP SME
PT PP FP
1x 4x
EMC
3x
ODC
IE WS
CH AE CSR
& BI
CE DE FE
Prepare LT strategy for ESPs TE UPT R S S S S S

Suggest Improvements for Artificial Lift Data Management TE UPT R S S S S
Develop and Upgrade ALD; Technical & Commercial Data UPT S S S S S R S
0 General Document Processes / Standards TE UPT R S S S
Share AL Knowledge TE UPT R S S S S S
Ensure TFG functioning efficiently TE UPT R S S S
Perform AL Process Health-checks TE UPT R S S S
Contract Strategy, Search Market CH CH S S S S S R S S
Technical Specs, Options AE CH S S S S S R
Ensure data requirements / KPI are included Data CH S S S S R S
Contract Tender Documentation CE CH S R
Technical Evaluation CH CH S S R S S
Commercial Evaluation (model) CE CH S R
1 Contract Award Award Contract CE CH S R
Share contract contents with wider community CH CH R
Mobilize CH CH R S S S S
HSE Compliance / Reporting CH CH R S S S
HSE Site, Incident Reporting CSR CH S S R S
Mobilisation Audits CH CH S S S R S S S S S
Demobilize CH CH R S S S S
Manage stock / Inventory AE CH S S R S S S
Verify at site CSR AE S S R S
Forecast / Plan Equipment (Short term) CSR CH S S S S R
Stock Forecast / Plan Equipment (Long Term) AE CH S S S S S R S S
2
Management Maintain vendor stock Contractor CH S S S S S R
Order surface equipment AE CH S S S S R S S
Order subsurface equipment AE CH S S S R S S
Verify Material Spec (API, Testing doc,..) AE CH R S S S
In the following section each of the key roles involved in managing the ESP Life-cycle is
described in short.
3.2 The ESP Subject Matter Expert
The ESP Subject Matter Expert has at least 15 to 20 years experience in Well and Reservoir
Management with a particular emphasis on Artificial Lift and more specifically with a strong
interest in and knowledge of ESP’s. In support of the PT Discipline Head the SME ensures
that all ESP Life-cycle management processes and support activities are in place and
adequately executed. These are:
• There is a pan-PDO ESP lift strategy and / or individual lift strategies for specific fields;
these need to be kept up to date.
• Regular process health-checks are carried out
• Process improvements (using LEAN) are identified and implemented (when necessary)
• Standards and Procedures are available and up to date.
• The positions in the ESP organisation are adequately filled
• Adequate capability of all ESP related staff, ie. availability of suitable class-room and ‘on
the job ‘ training
• The Theme Focus Group (TFG) for ESP’s is functioning
• New AL Technology is continuously assessed and where applicable effectively
implemented
Revision: 01
• The Design and Operating Data for ESP’s are adequately managed.
3.3 The Production Technologist
The Production Technologist is primarily responsible for the selection of the right lift method
for his / her assigned area of responsibility, be it a field or cluster of fields. If the preferred lift
method is the use of ESP’s, the PT is responsible for selecting the right ‘ESP design’ for the
well. Specific tasks the PT will need to follow up on:
• PT to prepare the initial well data in ALD, then sent this information to the ‘Contractor’
(Vendor) via the Desk Engineer.
• The ‘Contractor’ to provide a ‘draft’ ESP design
• PT to provide final Approval of the Optimised Design, proposed by the Contractor and in
Consultation with the Application Engineer. PT should also be able to verify the design by
running ESP design software (eg. Sub-pump)
• PT to set the Operating Envelope for the ESP. Ensure alignment with the Production
Programmer.
• PT to formally initiate the bean-up / bean-down request after discussion with the
Production Programmer.
• PT to write the ESP installation and start-up proposal
• PT to update root cause analysis report in ALD
• PT to understand overall ESP performance in the ‘field’ he / she is responsible for; close
communication with the Production Programmer (OXO/3x) and Application Engineer (in
UWA) is essential.
• Decision to pull a failed or underperforming ESP is the responsibility of the PT in
consultation with the Production Programmer and the Application Engineer.
• Initiate improvements on ESP design
• Conduct a minimum of 2 Frequent Failure Review sessions per year; include all relevant
parties, ie. PEs, AE, CWI, Prod. Programmers, etc
3.4 The Production Programmer / Field Programmer / Operations
The Production Programmer (on the Coast) and ‘his eyes and ears’ in the Field, the Field
Programmer, are responsible for daily monitoring of ESP performance. This implies ensuring
the ESP operates within the Operating Envelope (OE) as agreed with the Production
Technologist. If the ESP operates outside the OE, the Production Programmer will diagnose
the problem, with support of the Field Programmer, the PT or the AE, if required. For a surface
correction the Production Programmer will instruct the Vendor to rectify through the Vendor’s
Field Engineer, in the more serious cases in the presence of the Company Site
Representative or the Field Programmer. The Production Programmer validates and follows
up the optimisation requests from the PTs. If the problem is ‘sub-surface’ it is likely that the
pump needs to be pulled and replaced, which is the responsibility of the PT.
3.5 The Contract Holder (CH)
The Contract Holder has been assigned a Contract or a number of Contracts, depending on
the scope and value. The Contract Holder has a pure Contract management role with the
Application Engineer, assigned to the Contract(s), looking after the technical aspects of the
Contract. The key tasks of the Contract Holder are:
• Manage the Contract from mobilization to close-out ensuring all contractual, commercial,
technical, operational and HSE requirements are fulfilled as defined in the Contract Terms
and Conditions.
• Monitor Contract Expenditures in relation to the Contract Value, verify and process
invoices, approve payments including any penalties
• Monitor and Maintain Contract Records, Documentation and KPIs, including HSE
Compliance and follow-up on close-outs, audits and disputes
Revision: 01
• Interface with Assets and other stakeholders on all AL Contract issues; including Variation
to Contracts (VTC’s) and performance reviews
• Organise regular Business Performance Reviews (BPR’s) with the Contractors. This is the
opportunity for all key ESP stakeholders to discuss concerns regarding the Contract(s),
acknowledge (good) performance and make suggestions for further improvements.
3.6 The Application Engineer (AE)
When dealing with ESP’s in his/her area of responsibility (Contract / Vendor specific), the
Application Engineer is responsible for making sure that the final pump design is verified, that
the design is conform the Contract specifications and that the right pump is mobilised to the
field by the Vendor. The Application Engineer is responsible for making sure all technical ESP
reports are QA/QC’d and entered into ALD. In all this close cooperation with the CSR is
essential. Furthermore the AE plays an important role in ensuring ‘root cause analysis’ (RCA)
is carried out after pump failure. The AE needs to build up a good understanding of ESP
failure mechanisms across his/her area of responsibility and volunteer to share this knowledge
on a regular basis with both other AE colleagues and those PT’s accountable for optimising
ESP run-life in the areas in question. In principle the Application Engineer should have a
Production Technology back-ground and hence the job competency profile for AE’s will
contain a significant number of PT specific requirements. In summary the following key AE
tasks are expected:
• Verify the final pump design as agreed between PT and Vendor. Check design and
ensure it meets contractual and material specifications
• Ensure ESP equipment is suitably integrated with the completion equipment of the well
(check compatibility).
• Verify and ensure technical standards are followed by the CSR.
• Assign activity date in ALD
• Ensure and follow up with the CSR that all technical reports are submitted (approved or
rejected) on time. i.e. accountable for the quality of the technical reports to be registered in
ALD.
• At least twice a year, conduct an integrated ESP performance review for the Fields /
Vendors in your area of responsibility for and share the resulting findings with a wider
audience if not already involved (eg. PT, WRM Team, etc)
• Introduce and/or consolidate (design) improvements suggested by the PT or CSR
3.7 The Company Site Representative (CSR)
The Company Site Representative represents the Application Engineer in the Field (on-site).
The CSR tasks are mainly centered round facilitating the logistics of getting the ESP to
location and installed and likewise being on-site to witness a failed ESP being pulled. The
reporting related to these activities is the responsibility of the CSR. In summary:
• Verify and approve reports such as FSRs (Field Service Reports), MUS (Material Used
Sheet – installed equipment) and other data related to payments such as number of
closed-in strings, stand-by periods, malfunctioning sensors, etc.
• Front end contract supervisory role, update AE / CH on progress of work execution
including installations, troubleshooting, disputes & claims.
• Follow-up with Contractor on data input, weekly monitoring, on site HSE requirements and
inspections.
• Witness pullout and running-in of Artificial Lift strings (ESP) in critical wells
• Provide ‘on-site’ support to the Artificial Lift Field Programmer.
• Identify improvement opportunities with respect to ESP interventions and operations.

Revision: 01
3.8 Business Support Engineer
The Business Support Engineer is primarily responsible for maintaining and improving the
ESP section of the Artificial Lift Data-base (ALD). At the time of issuing this COP (July 2013),
the ALD is undergoing further improvements with technical ESP performance KPI’s being
included (to complement the current Contractual KPI’s); in addition a separate Rod-Pumping
section is being added (which will be the responsibility of the Rod-pumping section (OSORP)
to manage – to be covered in the Rod-Pump COP). Supported by technical assistants (TA),
the tasks of the Business Support Engineer are as follows:
• Manage the Artificial Lift Database (including chasing data input, resolving Data Base
technical issues, further improvement and training)
• Track and report agreed Artificial Lift KPI’s (technical and commercial); QC’d by CH, AE’s
and CSR’s; this as input into the overall AL Field performance analysis by the asset.
• Coordinate and implement UWA business plan as well as other performance reports
• Effectively, interface with Assets and other stakeholders on all AL Data Management
issues
3.9 The Vendor Desk Engineer (DE)
The Vendor or Contractor Desk Engineer (DE) provides direct ESP design and logistics
support to the Assets and UWA, ensuring continuous alignment between PDO and the
Vendor. His/her primary responsibility is to propose a design for the pump based on the initial
design data provided by the PT and once approved, follow up on all the activities required to
have the final ESP physically on location. Furthermore the Desk Engineer plays an important
role in ensuring that detailed data and reports are entered into the key AL data bases, ALD
and EDM (see Figure 5.1). The Desk Engineer will also keep a track of the performance of
running pumps and advise the Assets and UWA if setting changes are required. The key tasks
are thus as follows:
• Prepare the Pump Design (eg. using Autograph) and Quotation
• Prepare a list of related Materials / Equipment & organise transport
• Ensure a complete vendor crew is allocated to the planned installation
• Enter key ESP design and ESP activity reports (eg. MUS, Commissioning Report, etc) in
ALD
• Provide weekly status summary sheet of all ESP’s currently installed.
For adequate support it is essential that the Vendor Desk Engineers are co-located with the
Assets in the PDO office.

Revision: 01
4. Contract Management Support Structure

4.1 Introduction
With an increase in use of down-hole Pumps to lift production, a separate Artificial Lift section
within Well Engineering was formed during the late Nineties. This section was set up to manage
the down-hole pump contracts on behalf of the Assets (eg. similar to Well Engineering supporting
the Open Hole Logging Contracts). Due to increasing scope and high value / costs of the ESP
contracts the team (UWA) primarily focused on this Lift Type. Ten years on the numbers of rod
driven pumps (Beam Pumps and PCP’s) have also risen dramatically and hence in 2012 a
separate section (OSORP) was created to manage the Rod-pump Contracts. Both sections
provide similar support services to the Assets, which is also reflected in similar but separate
R&R’s Matrices for these sections. As long as the R&R’s are clear, the actual organizational
structure and location of the teams are of secondary importance. With the current equal split of
ESP numbers between North and South Oman, the UWA section (from 2013 onwards to be
called the UWE section) will remain within the Well Engineering department (UWD), whilst the
Rod Pump section (OSORP) is embedded in the South Directorate, based on the fact that Rod
Pumping predominantly takes place in the South. In 2015 the set-up of the current ESP Contract
Management Organisation will be reviewed and improved if there is a business need to do so.
4.2 Organizational Structure
The ESP Contract Management organization has the following structure:
ESP Services Manager

UWA (UWD or PT*)
Contracts T/L ESP A/E & Operations T/L Business Support T/L
UWA/1 (UWD) UWA/2 (UWD or PT*) UWA/3 (UWD or PT*)
Contract Holders AE’s CSR’s Engineer and TA’s

(UWD) (PT or UWD) (PT or UWD) (UWD)
Figure 4.1, UWA Organisational Structure

* UWD Broadening assignment for PT’s
Indicated in ‘blue’ are the typical functions that UWA staff may belong to. Although pre-
dominantly selected from the Well Engineering and PT Function, it does not exclude
Operations staff from a possible broadening assignment in UWA.
The Functional responsibility for staff lies with the PT Discipline Head and the WE Discipline
Head, depending on staff functional parentage. The PT Discipline Head takes overall
responsibility for the functioning of the team within the ESP Business life-cycle and assures
the ESP Technical Capability of the members of the team. The Contract Management
Capability of the Team is looked after by the WE Discipline Head with support of the Contracts
Department.

Revision: 01
5 Data Management
5.1 The Artificial Lift Data Base (ALD)
The Artificial Lift Data base (ALD) was originally set-up to provide support for managing the
contractual part of the ESP life-cycle, which resulted in the monitoring of actual ESP
performance with regards to WRFM being given less attention. Also it was not clear whether
the ALD could be considered as a Corporate Data-base given its limited scope and use.
Furthermore also the use of the Well Engineering Reporting Data-base (EDM) was not clear in
this respect.
Following a review in 2011 it was decided to designate ALD as a Corporate Data-base for
those AL data and reports not captured in any other Corporate Data-bases. To ensure broader
and more efficient utilization, the functionality of ALD needed to be enhanced by:
• Further improving the ESP performance monitoring section (eg. add performance
visualizations, WRM related KPI’s)
• Introducing a Data Work-flow process to QA/QC data input
• Adding an option to track ESP surface equipment
It was also decided to further expand ALD by introducing similar modules for Beam-Pumps
and PCP’s, which would then truly justify its name - an ‘Artificial Lift’ Data-base.
5.2 ESP Performance KPI’s

Clear definitions of the ESP Performance KPI’s and an efficient method of monitoring and
presenting these are essential in managing continuous performance improvement. Run-life under
optimum load and monitoring factors that can influence run-life, needs to be presented on an
area, field or well basis. Production deferment is dictated by turn-around time, which is the time it
takes from the ESP failing till the moment the replacement ESP is installed, commissioned and
started up. The ESP SME has the responsibility for defining and embedding these KPI’s in ALD.
On a regular basis the SME has to review the results and share these with the Assets. This can
be done either through the Theme Focus Group (TFG) meetings or the monthly Asset or
Directorate Business Performance meetings
5.3 Data Management Support

With key support from the Subsurface Data Office (UPM) a PE Data Management Standards
document for ESP’s was put together. This document (Hyperlink) can be summarized as follows:
“The document describes PDO’s guidelines and standards for entering, validating and storing of
Electrical Submersible Pump (ESP) data in a corporate database (Artificial Lift Database-ALD). A
data workflow has been prepared to cover the entire data management process for all ESP wells
in PDO. To ensure data quality at all stages of the ESP design, installation, commissioning, FSR
(Field Service Report) and pull-out and analysis phases are addressed. It also ensures alignment
with the ESP income and payment process. The workflow covers both surface and subsurface
ESP equipment. The process shall provide a proper tracking of the materials and equipment to be
installed in an ESP well as well as tracking the status of the equipment to be pulled out of the
hole. The process has been designed to integrate with EDM for well properties and well
mechanical data. The data process has been simplified and streamlined in order to help more
providing the required data for root cause analysis”.
The Data Workflow as mentioned in the above summary is depicted in Figure 5.1 below:

Revision: 01
Petroleum Development Oman LLC
Electrical Submersible Pump (ESP) Data Work-Flow
Asset Team PT Contractor Contractor ARTIFICIAL LIFT SERVICES UWA EDM Team (UWB12) UWB
YES
Yes 5
EDM 6
Contractor. 2
Check Design AE Approval – Is it the CH Approval – Is it as per
Well Properties and Sheet – is it include optimum equipments? contract?
Well Mechanical data all Req. Data?
Go to 4 Yes
NO
YEs
ALD 13b
NO Awaiting Job Execution
3
1
PT
Create Design Data NO Contractor. 7 EDM Custodian
After Execution:
Sheet No Create Design and check/change
CSR 1- Lift Type in well properties
Quotation in ALD
Assign activity date 2- Pump Details in completion
Tally
8 9
Contractor.. CSR verify

create Material Used NO MUS report - are right
4
Report in ALD materials?
Asset (PT)
Design & Quotation
Approval – Is it the right and YES
10
optimum ESP design?
Contractor
create Installation
11 CSR verify
Report in ALD NO
Installation report - Are all
parameters captured and working
as they should be?
YES
12b System send to Notification

12a to EDM team with lift type
and pump details
Contractor
Create commissioning
Report in ALD
14b
This is where 13a

CSR verify Contract holder
NO Approve/reject IPC(Interim
the PT Commissioning report
Payment Certificate)
14a
approves the YES YES
Contractor
‘f inal ‘pump Create field service 15b
Pyment
process
report in ALD
design !! 15a
No
CSR verify FSR contains NO
RCA
16 NO
Contractor review Field service report “Fail Code”
reports (inst. MUS. EDM
Comm. FSR) YES
NO
YES YES 19
 PT: Production Technologist

 AE: Beam pump Application Engineer NO AE:
17
 CH: Beam pump Contract Holder Perform
18 CSR verify ALD Event & Daily reports
 CSR: Artificial Lift Company Service Re-preventive Root Cause
Contractor Pull out report with
 MUS: Material Used Sheet Analysis
 Inst. Installation Report Create pull out Report “POOH Date”
 Comm. Commissioning Report in ALD
 FSR: Field Service Report
Appendix-1
Figure 5.1, ESP Data Management Processes
5.4 Data Input Performance Tracking

Essential for the assurance of compliance with the data input process is the identification,
definition and tracking of the workflow KPI’s. Figure xx shows this in detail with process steps and
target times indicated.
Figure 5.2, ESP Data Workflow KPI’s

Revision: 01
The Subsurface Data Management Office (UPM4) has the responsibility of tracking the compliance
on a regular basis and will provide a KPI performance and non-compliance update to UWA and the
Assets. An example of what KPI performance tracking would look like is as follows:
Figure 5.3, ESP Data Management Compliance Tracking

Revision: 01
6 Capability
6.1 Introduction
To ensure optimum management of the ESP business and performance life-cycle, staff
involved should have the right competences for the roles that they have been tasked to
perform. The Roles and Responsibilities for the various positions managing the Life-cycle are
clearly spelled out in the R&R Matrix presented in Chapter 3. How to achieve the right
competences for these positions will be discussed in this chapter.
6.2 Staff Development Options
Currently the Production Technologist, responsible for the final design of the ESP installed in a
well, gains his/her general Artificial Lift understanding by attending the PT foundation courses
PT100a / PT100b, followed up by more specific basic and intermediate level courses on
ESP’s. However, real ‘hands-on’ exposure, such as designing the ESP, preparing the
proposal, planning the installation and then physically go and witness the installation,
commissioning and start-up in the field, is not formally provided, although it is recognized as
being an important skill to have. In the early days, when every PT started off with a 2 year
period on the ‘well-site’ there was a good chance of a significant number of PT’s being
exposed to this type of ‘activity’. Since the ‘Well-site PE’ scheme was abandoned, a
deterioration of the understanding of many ‘field practices’ has clearly been at the basis of an
increase in the number of ‘poor’ decisions or mis-understandings. Hence now the decision to
re-instate a ‘field exposure’ scheme, although this time with more specific focus on certain skill
sets. This will be the start for a number of graduates to embark on a specific ‘ESP’ career or
alternatively this scheme will be used as an introduction to a more main-stream staff position.
The above proposal is not limited to only graduates that have been recruited as junior
Production Technologists. Also Operations or Well Engineering parented graduates could opt
for this scheme. How this will link with the existing Graduate Development schemes for
Operations and Well Engineering will need to be further worked.
The ESP Contract Management Section (UWA) will fulfill an important role in the development
of specific ESP skills of staff, particularly in the early stages of their career. The ‘staff
development paths’ below illustrate this and show the option of developing either into a ESP
Technical Expert as a career or making the choice at an early stage (after 2 years in the field
as ESP CSR) to continue in a more main-stream staff role in Production Technology or
Production Operations.
Figure 6.1, ESP Staff Development Options

Revision: 01
Please note that the periods above are indicative only. The first 2 years as Field Artificial Lift
CSR will also be included in the new ‘Graduate Development Scheme’, to be rolled out in
2014.
Links with the existing Graduate Development schemes for Operations and Well Engineering
will need to be worked out further.
6.3 Skills and Competencies Matrix
As a guide for all staff involved in managing the ESP Life-cycle, a Skills and Competencies
Matrix has been developed for ESP’s (see Appendix B). The Matrix consists of 5 different
Proficiency levels, each of which are made up of a number of more detailed skills
requirements (each with the required level of understanding indicated). The Matrix also
indicates how these skills can be acquired, either through Foundation Courses (eg. PT100),
specific ESP Courses or ‘On-the-Job’ Training. The 5 Proficiency Levels are:
• Level 1 - Basic Understanding - Basic courses and Initial Field Exposure
• Level 2 - Gain Subsurface Understanding - ESP Problem diagnosis in the field
• Level 3 - Operate independently - troubleshoot, analyse problems, recommend
• Level 4 - ESP Specialist - Advise the organisation - improve the ESP Business
• Level 5 - ESP Expert - Manage the ESP Business including Contracts; Global Adviser
6.4 Learning and Development Ladder
The above Skills and Competencies Matrix has been translated into an ESP Learning and
Development Ladder (see Appendix C). The L&D Ladder has 6 time / job steps showing the
possible training and development options for each step and the Proficiency levels that can be
achieved if these training and development options are fulfilled. The training and development
options are split into:
• Specific ESP life-cycle management related in-house courses
• Shell Hub courses ore specific imported ESP related events
• Field or Department familiarization training
The criticality of each of the modules within these options is also indicated
6.5 Theme Focus Group (TFG)

Another means of further enhancing specific ESP knowledge and skills across the
organization is through the set up of a Theme Focus Group (TFG), in this case a specific TFG
for ESP’s. The SME or Technical Expert is responsible for running the TFG.
6.5.1 Objective of the TFG

The objectives of the TFG are as follows:
• to define the current status of the Theme in question
o current ways of working, data management, workflow processes, standards
and guidelines, resources, training etc need to be addressed
• to develop a network of staff from different disciplines across PDO and any other
(external) stakeholders
• to facilitate a common understanding of theme related issues and their potential solutions,
• to drive (technological) solutions to above identified issues in order to improve the
profitability of our business.
• to identify best practices within the (theme) area in question and if suitable embed PDO
wide.

Revision: 01
• where possible introduce New Technology in order to improve the profitability of our
business
6.5.2 Membership of the TFG
Membership of the TFG will comprise:

• A Focal Point and an alternative focal point to ensure continual coverage.
o The Focal Point could be the SME or a Technical Expert for the subject in
question
• Experts - drawn from within PDO and external stakeholders.
• Members - drawn from staff who have either an interest in applying or improving the
theme / associated workflow processes or who wish to develop into a technical expert in
the field.
o Members should limit themselves to one Theme Focus Group to maintain a
strong focus.
o Number of active members typically 5 -10 staff
Note: The exception would be members of staff currently in the Studies Centre who are
charged with integrating more than one technical solution into Field Development Plans.

Revision: 01
Appendix A
R&R Matrix for ESP Life Cycle Management – Hyperlink this

Appendix A (cont’d)
Revision: 01
Appendix B
ESP Skills and Competencies Matrix – Hyperlink this

Revision: 01
Appendix B (Cont’d)
Appendix B (Cont’d)
Revision: 01

Appendix C
ESP Learning Ladder – Hyperlink this

CP-214 2013 ESP Life-Cycle Management Code of Practice

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CP-214 2013 ESP Life-Cycle Management Code of Practice

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Petroleum Development Oman L.L.C.

ESP Life-Cycle Management

Document Type Code of Practice

Discipline Petroleum Engineering (UPD) / Production Tecnology (UPT)

Owner Ali Al Gheithy / Rahima Mujaini

This page was intentionally left blank

Page 2 'CP-214' - ESP Life Cycle Management CoP Printed 001/10/15

Page 3 'CP-214' - ESP Life Cycle Management CoP Printed 001/10/15

Version No. Date Author Scope / Remarks

iii Related Business Processes

iv Related Corporate Management Frame Work (CMF) Documents

CP-114 Maintenance and Integrity Management - CoP

Page 4 'CP-214' - ESP Life Cycle Management CoP Printed 001/10/15

Page 5 'CP-214' - ESP Life Cycle Management CoP Printed 001/10/15

3.7 The Company Site Representative (CSR).................................................................................16

Page 6 'CP-214' - ESP Life Cycle Management CoP Printed 001/10/15

1.3 Target Audience

1.4 Document Review and Change Control

Page 7 'CP-214' - ESP Life Cycle Management CoP Printed 001/10/15

1.6 Structure of this Document

This CoP describes in detail

Page 8 'CP-214' - ESP Life Cycle Management CoP Printed 001/10/15

2. ESP Life Cycle Management

AE = Application Engineer (PDO)

ESP Life Cycle CSR = Company Site Rep. (PDO)

UPT Health-Check ESPSME / UWA

Failure Analysis Contracts Monitor Maintain

UPT Data Base / Data Quality UWA / PT / UPM4

UPT ESPSME / UPM4

UPT ESPSME / UWA

Figure 2.1, ESP Life-cycle Management Processes

2.2 Key Life Cycle Phases

Page 9 'CP-214' - ESP Life Cycle Management CoP Printed 001/10/15

2.2.3 Planning and Installation.

2.2.4 Operate (monitor, optimise & maintain)

Page 10 'CP-214' - ESP Life Cycle Management CoP Printed 001/10/15

Optimise: If the identified problem or optimisation opportunity is surface related the

2.2.5 Intervention / Repair

2.2.6 Failure Analysis

2.2.7 Contract Management

2.3 Life Cycle Support Processes

Page 11 'CP-214' - ESP Life Cycle Management CoP Printed 001/10/15

2.3.3 Data Base & Data Quality

2.3.4 Workflow Processes

2.3.5 Standards and Procedures

2.3.6 Capability & Training

2.3.7 Technology Evaluation

2.3.8 Technology Implementation

Page 13 'CP-214' - ESP Life Cycle Management CoP Printed 001/10/15

3. Principle Roles & Responsibilities

3.1 The ESP R&R Matrix

Roles & Responsibilities for ESP's

Prepare LT strategy for ESPs TE UPT R S S S S S

3.2 The ESP Subject Matter Expert

3.3 The Production Technologist

3.4 The Production Programmer / Field Programmer / Operations

3.5 The Contract Holder (CH)

3.6 The Application Engineer (AE)

3.7 The Company Site Representative (CSR)

Page 16 'CP-214' - ESP Life Cycle Management CoP Printed 001/10/15

3.8 Business Support Engineer

3.9 The Vendor Desk Engineer (DE)

Page 17 'CP-214' - ESP Life Cycle Management CoP Printed 001/10/15

4. Contract Management Support Structure