Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Objectives
Present AL Statistics
Provide summary of how each lift
method works and key components
Advantages and disadvantages of each
method
How determine lift efficiency
Process for lift method selection /
elimination
Selection exercise
1
Major Forms of Artificial Lift (AL)
2
AL Distribution: World Wide
14%
832000 Wells
7%
71%
AL Statistics
Approximately 2 Million Oil Wells In The
World
About 1 Million Wells Utilize Artificial Lift
Roughly 750,000 of these wells use sucker rod
pumps
Gas lifted wells produce more oil than nay other
method
More $ are spent on ESPs worlwide than any other
method
PCPs are fastest developing / evolving lift method
U.S. beam lift systems lift about 350,000
wells. About 80 percent of U.S. oil wells are
stripper wells, making less than 10 bpd
Reciprocating Rod
Pump or Beam Pump
Overview
4
Hydraulically Powered Surface Units
10
5
More Common Units
Air Balance
Unit Conventional Unit
Mark
11
12
6
Beam System Disadvantages
Potential for Tubing and Rod Wear
Gas-Oil Ratios
Most Systems Limited to Ability of
Rods to Handle Loads - Volume
Sucker Rod
Tubing Anchor/
Catcher
Decreases As Depth Increases
Environmental and Aesthetic
Sucker Rod
Pump
Concerns
Assembly
13
14
Progressing Cavity
Pumps (PCP)
PCP Components
16
8
PCP Advantages
Low Capital Cost
Vertical
Low Surface Profile for Visual and
Electric
Wellhead Height Sensitive Areas
Drive
Sucker Rod
Low Power Consumption
Portable Surface Equipment
Sucker Rod Coupling
Tubing Collar
17
PCP Disadvantages
Limited Depth Capability
Vertical
Temperature
Electric
Wellhead
Drive
Sensitivity to Produced Fluids
Low Volumetric Efficiencies in
Casing High-Gas Environments
Potential for Tubing and Rod
Production Tubing
Coupling Wear
Sucker Rod
Requires Constant Fluid Level
Sucker Rod Coupling
Tubing Collar
above Pump
Stator
Rotor
Tubing Collar
18
9
PCP System Application Considerations
Stator
Fluid Gravity <35 API
Rotor
Servicing Workover or Pulling Rig
*Special Prime Mover Type Gas or Electric
Analysis
Required Offshore Application Good (ES/PCP)
Tubing Collar System Efficiency 40%-70%
19
Gas Lift
10
Gaslift Rotative System
21
Gaslift Advantages
High Degree of Flexibility and
Injection Design Rates
Gas In Produced
Hydrocarbons
Out
Wireline Retrievable
Handles Sandy Conditions Well
Side Pocket
Mandrel with
Allows For Full Bore Tubing Drift
Side Pocket
Gas Lift Valve
Surface Wellhead Equipment
Mandrel with
Gas Lift Valve
Requires Minimal Space
Multi-Well Production From
Side Pocket
Mandrel with Single Compressor
Gas Lift Valve
Completion
Multiple or Slimhole Completion
Fluid
Single
Production
Packer
22
11
Gaslift Disadvantages
Needs High-Pressure Gas Well or
Injection Compressor
Gas In Produced
Hydrocarbons
Out
One Well Leases May Be
Uneconomical
Side Pocket Fluid Viscosity
Mandrel with
Gas Lift Valve Bottomhole Pressure
Side Pocket
Mandrel with
Gas Lift Valve
High Back-Pressure
Side Pocket
Mandrel with
Gas Lift Valve
Completion
Fluid
Single
Production
Packer
23
24
12
Motor Valve
Valves
Dewatering Gas Wells
Rig Not Required for Installation
Dual T Pad
Plunger
Easy Maintenance
Keeps Well Cleaned of Paraffin
Deposits
Bumper
Spring
Low Cost Artificial Lift Method
Handles Gassy Wells
Good in Deviated Wells
Can Produce Well to Depletion
26
13
Plunger Lift Disadvantages
Lubricator Specific GLRs to Drive System
Catcher
Solar Panel
Orifice
Low Volume Potential (200 BPD)
Controller Control
Motor Valve Valves
Solids
Requires Surveillance to Optimize
Dual T Pad
Plunger
Bumper
Spring
27
28
14
Hydraulic Pumping
Systems
30
15
Hydraulic Piston Lift System Advantages
Often Free or Wireline
Surface Power Retrievable
Fluid Package
Positive Displacement - Strong
Drawdown
Production
Casing Double-Acting High-Volumetric
Efficiency
High Pressure
Packer Nose
Power Fluid Good Depth/Volume Capability -
Bottom Hole
Assembly
+15,000 ft.
Piston or Jet
Deviated Wells
Free Pump
Multi-Well Production From Single
Standing Valve
Surface Package
Horsepower Efficiency
31
Standing Valve
32
16
Hydraulic Piston Application Considerations
33
Piston or Jet
Free Pump
Standing Valve
34
17
Hydraulic Jet Lift System Disadvantages
Producing Rate Relative to
Surface Power Bottomhole Pressure
Fluid Package
Some Require Specific Bottomhole
Assemblies
Production
Casing
Lower Horsepower Efficiency
High-Pressure Surface Line
High Pressure
Packer Nose
Power Fluid Requirements
Bottom Hole
Assembly
Piston or Jet
Free Pump
Standing Valve
35
36
18
Electric Submersible
Pumps
(ESP)
38
19
ESP System Advantages
Motor
Control
High Volume and Depth Capability
Vent
Box High Efficiency Over 1,000 BPD
Produced
Hydrocarbons Out Low Maintenance
Productio
n
Tubing
Minor Surface Equipment Needs
Pump
Good in Deviated Wells
Adaptable to All Wells With 4-1/2
Flat
Cable Casing and Larger
Extensio
Seal
n Section
Use for Well Testing
Motor
39
Pump
Free Gas and/or Abrasives
High Viscosity
Flat Cable
Extension Higher Pulling Costs
Seal
Section
Motor
40
20
ESP Application Considerations
41
Summary: AL Characteristics
42
21
Lift Method
Efficiency
44
22
Lift Method Efficiency
Unit
unit
Motor
motor
Stuffing
box stuff
Rods rods
Bomba pump
45
46
23
Lift Method Efficiency
Ultimately the efficiency
of the system is: Energy Out
system =
Energy In
1 HP = 550 ft.lb/sec
How do we takes care of
units to convert BPD x Lift
x s.g to HP?
BPD Lift s . g
HP =
135730
47
48
24
Lift Method Efficiency
Statistics on lift method
efficiency vary
It depends on source
And what they want to
justify
Typical figures. AL Typical
Method Efficiency (%)
PCP 60 - 75
Rod Pump 45 - 60
ESP 35 - 40
Gas Lift 5 30
Jet Pump 10 - 25
49
Lift Method
Selection
25
AL Lift/Rate Capabilities ( Approximate )
2. Elimination Process
35,00
0
Submersible
Barrels per Day
Pumping and
15,000
Hydraulic
Jet Pump
Gas Lift 10,000
5,000
13,000
14,000
16,000
12,000
15,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
8,000
1,000
2,000
3,000
7,000
9,000
10,000
11,000
Lift Depth
51
4,500
3,500
Reciprocating
3,000
Hydraulic
2,500
Pumps,
Barrels per Day
PC Pumps, 2,000
Recip. Hydraulic
50 Pumps
0 Plunger Lift
14,000
16,000
2,000
7,000
3,000
10,000
15,000
11,000
1,000
13,000
9,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
8,000
12,000
Lift Depth
52
26
AL Depth/Rate Capabilities ( Approximate) SI
350.0
3
300.0
250.0
200.0
Plunger Lift
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500
Depth, m
53
3000.0
3
2500.0
2000.0
1500.0
1000.0 Jet Pump
500.0
0.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Depth, m
54
27
Summary
55
3- Depth: 12000 ft
Little sand present
Production: 50 bpd
56
28
Select Best AL System for Conditions
57
29