PO178433 DOI: 10.
2118/178433-PA Date: 4-February-16 Stage: Page: 76
Nodal Analysis by Use of ESP
Intake and Discharge
Pressure Gauges
P. M. Bruijnen, TAQA Energy
Summary
Electrical submersible pumps (ESPs) are often not only equipped
with bottomhole-pressure gauges, but more frequently contain
discharge pressure gauges as well. This combination of gauges
can be used to extend the classical nodal-analysis approach with
an extra component. Inclusion of an additional discharge pressure
gauge allows for the construction of two sets of inflow and out-
flow equations: one set where the selected node is the pump intake
and one set where the selected node is the pump discharge. A
graphical method demonstrates how to evaluate these two sets of
equations simultaneously. This graphical method is then further
condensed into a few simple and easy to use guidelines.
Six possible situations can be faced during operation of an
ESP: improving/decreasing performance upstream of the intake
pressure gauge, improving/decreasing performance between the
intake and the discharge pressure gauges, and improving/decreas-
ing performance downstream of the discharge pressure gauge.
Analysis of the changes in intake and discharge pressures can
quickly identify which one of these six scenarios is affecting the
production performance, thus enabling the breakdown of the pro-
duction system into the reservoir performance, ESP performance,
and tubing performance. Several field examples of oil wells com-
pleted with ESPs that contain intake and discharge pressure
gauges illustrate the benefit of this procedure.
This method is applicable for any downhole pump with intake
and discharge pressure gauges. Even if pump maps are not avail-
able, or when the well’s liquid-flow rates are not (accurately)
known, it is a reliable method to localize downhole production
problems. This approach makes full use of the advantages of mul-
tiple downhole gauges; nodal analysis in combination with intake
and discharge pressure gauges is a quick, inexpensive, and power-
ful method to determine the location of production problems, so
appropriate actions can be taken to maximize well performance.
Introduction
Currently, ESPs are frequently equipped with both intake pressure
gauges and discharge pressure gauges. The added value of these
gauges is that they provide diagnostic tools to evaluate the down-
hole conditions. They offer a way of enhancing the lifetime of the
ESP by mitigating in time for the changing conditions that are
picked up by the sensors.
Analyzing the responses of the intake pressure gauge and the
discharge pressure gauge on an individual basis is useful, but does
not give all answers to evaluate the downhole circumstances
effectively. As an example, the intake pressure could show an
increasing trend, meaning that either the reservoir performance is
increasing, or the tubing performance or the ESP performance are
decreasing. Evaluating the intake pressure gauge alone does not
therefore provide a satisfactory explanation for the observed pres-
sure response. Reliable flow-rate data could aid in the analysis,
but too often, the data do not provide the desired answer. If in the
preceding example the flow rates show an increasing trend, then
the reservoir performance is indeed increasing. If, however, the
Copyright V
C 2016 Society of Petroleum Engineers
Original SPE manuscript received for review 21 May 2015. Revised manuscript received for
review 31 July 2015. Paper (SPE 178433) peer approved 19 August 2015.
76
ID: jaganm Time: 00:01 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/150036/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##150036
Total Pages: 9
flow rates show a decreasing trend, then the engineer is still faced
with two possible scenarios: decreasing tubing performance or
decreasing ESP performance. To complicate the investigation
even further, accurate flow-rate measurements or production allo-
cations are often unreliable or even absent.
The solution to this problem is to evaluate the pressure
responses of the pump-intake gauge and pump-discharge gauge
simultaneously by use of a nodal-analysis approach. By doing so,
the availability of accurate flow-rate data is not a prerequisite any-
more; the combined responses of the pressure gauges are suffi-
cient to distinguish between the performance of the reservoir, the
ESP, and the production tubing.
Nodal Analysis
The relationship between the flowing bottomhole pressure and the
liquid-production rate is commonly referred to as the inflow per-
formance relationship (IPR) and forms one of the building blocks
for nodal analysis (Heriot-Watt University 2004). The IPR is seen
classically as a reservoir-performance curve, which means implic-
itly that it only describes the flow behavior up until the sandface.
Practically speaking, the IPR consists of the reservoir-perform-
ance curve plus the performance of the liner section between the
sandface and the bottomhole gauge because bottomhole gauges
are rarely located in front of the sandface. Vogel (1968) devel-
oped an equation that relates the flowing bottomhole pressure and
the flow rate in case the reservoir production falls below the bub-
blepoint and free gas is produced. The performance of the tubing
is commonly referred to as the vertical-lift-performance (VLP) or
outflow-performance curve, and is a function of the hydrostatic
head in the well, pressure losses along the well, and the backpres-
sure at the wellhead.
Nodal analysis consists of selecting a single point (also called
a node) somewhere along the entire production system between
the edges of the reservoir and the production separator. Upstream
equations for the total pressure losses between the edge of the res-
ervoir and the node can be developed. Likewise, downstream
equations for the total pressure losses between the node and the
production separator can be developed too. By equating both
equations, the flow rate and the pressure at the node can be calcu-
lated because flow into the node equals flow out of the node, and
only one pressure can exist at the node (Heriot-Watt University
2004). Furthermore, the pressures at the end points of the system
(reservoir edges and separator) are both fixed; thus,
Preservoir – ðPressure loss upstream componentsÞ ¼ Pnode ;
                   ð1Þ
and
Pseparator þ ðPressure loss downstream componentsÞ ¼ Pnode :
                   ð2Þ
Evaluation of the changes that are observed at the node make it
possible to determine whether the inflow or the outflow perform-
ance has changed. It is up to the petroleum engineer to decide on
the location of the node, depending on the objective. A frequently
used location of the node is the sandface or lower completion. In
February 2016 SPE Production & Operations
 PO178433 DOI: 10.2118/178433-PA Date: 4-February-16
60 Hz
50 Hz
Head (m) 40 Hz
30 Hz
Flow Rate (BLPD)
Fig. 1—(a) Typical ESP-performance map (head vs. flow rate). By multiplying this head with the specific gravity of the pumped
fluid, a DP vs. flow-rate map can be constructed (b). Note that the concavity of the isofrequency lines does not change.
case no downhole pump is present, the inflow and outflow equa-
tions are therefore formed by the IPR and VLP curves.
ESP-Performance Curves
The performance of the pump is depicted graphically by pump-
performance curves, showing the relationship between the head
generated by the pump and the liquid-flow rates, often at various
frequencies. A typical ESP-performance curve (head vs. flow
rate) is shown in Fig. 1a. The head developed by each stage
starts from the shutoff head valid at zero flow rate and decreases
continuously with the liquid rate across the pump. Only if the
shock losses (occurring at the entrance and the exit of the impel-
ler, caused by sudden changes in the direction of flow) at low
flow rates are very large, then the head might increase initially a
little (Takacs 2009). Gas pumps have pump maps that often ex-
hibit low head at low flow rates. For the case in which such a
gas pump is installed underneath the ESP, the sum of these two
serial pumps results in a pump curve that shows a clear “saddle”
at low flow rates. The majority of ESP-performance curves,
however, show a continuously decreasing head with increasing
flow rate.
Similar to all other centrifugal pumps, ESPs lift the fluids a
certain distance (head), regardless of the density of the fluid. For
purposes described later in this paper, it is more convenient to
have pressure increase vs. flow-rate maps. To convert head to
pressure or vice versa, the density of the fluid mixture entering the
pump is required:
H ¼ ðPd  Pi Þ=0:0981=c; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð3Þ
where H is the head in meters, Pd is the discharge pressure in bar,
Pi is the intake pressure in bar, and c is the specific gravity of the
fluid mixture, relative to water.
If the head on the y-axis is converted into pressure generated
by the ESP by multiplying the head with the specific gravity of
the liquid mixture, then the concavity of the isofrequency lines
does not change; concave down remains concave down (see Fig.
1b), irrespective of the absolute value of the specific gravity. Cre-
ating such a schematic, DP vs. flow-rate maps allow for an easy
integration of these maps with the IPR and VLP. For the remain-
der of this article, this DP vs. flow-rate map for ESPs is conven-
iently called the ESP curve.
Nodal Analysis Including ESPs With Pd and Pi
The classical nodal-analysis approach, in which only one node is
used, can be extended in case the ESP is equipped with intake and
discharge pressure gauges. The technique is depicted schemati-
cally in Fig. 2.
February 2016 SPE Production & Operations
ID: jaganm Time: 00:01 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/150036/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##150036
Stage: Page: 77 Total Pages: 9
60 Hz
Pdischarge – Pintake (bar)
50 Hz
40 Hz
30 Hz
Flow Rate (BLPD)
Having an additional discharge pressure gauge allows for the
construction of two sets of inflow and outflow equations.
1. If the selected node is the discharge pressure, then
Inflow equation:
Preservoir  DPreservoir  DPðsandface to pump intakeÞ
þ DPESP ¼ Pnode :              ð4Þ
Outflow equation:
Pseparator þ DPtubing ¼ Pnode :               ð5Þ
The pressure losses between the sandface and the pump
intake can be significant, especially when the ESP is a sub-
stantial distance from the sandface. As mentioned earlier,
the IPR can be considered practically as the reservoir per-
formance plus the performance of the liner section between
the sandface and the bottomhole gauge. Because [Preservoir –
DPreservoir – DP(sandface to pump intake)] is represented by the
IPR and (Pseparator þ DPtubing) is represented by the VLP,
Eqs. 4 and 5 can be rewritten as follows:
Inflow equation: IPR þ ESP ¼ Pdischarge : . . . . . . . ð6Þ
Outflow equation: VLP ¼ Pdischarge : . . . . . . . . . . . ð7Þ
2. If the selected node is the intake pressure, then
Inflow equation:
Preservoir  DPreservoir  DPðsandface to pump intakeÞ ¼ Pnode :
                   ð8Þ
Outflow equation:
Pseparator þ DPtubing  DPESP ¼ Pnode :          ð9Þ
Because [Preservoir – DPreservoir – DP(sandface to pump intake)] is
represented by the IPR and (Pseparator þ DPtubing) is repre-
sented by the VLP, Eqs. 8 and 9 can be rewritten as follows:
Inflow equation: IPR ¼ Pintake : . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð10Þ
Outflow equation: VLP  ESP ¼ Pintake : . . . . . . . ð11Þ
Nodal analysis typically involves a graphical approach to
solving the preceding sets of equations. A schematic of
these two sets of inflow and outflow equations is shown in
Fig. 3, where Eqs. 6, 7, 10, and 11 are drawn.
• IPR þ ESP: This curve is formed by adding the ESP
curve to the IPR curve. This forms the inflow equation
for the case in which the selected node is the dis-
charge pressure (see Eq. 6).
77
 PO178433 DOI: 10.2118/178433-PA Date: 4-February-16 Stage: Page: 78 Total Pages: 9

performance
Tubing
VLP curve

Discharge
pressure (Pd) Pd Node
gauge

ESP performance + Tubing performance

Pump
Gas handler

Reservoir performance + ESP performance

ESP curve
Protector
Motor

Intake
pressure
Pi Node
(Pi) gauge

performance
Reservoir
IPR curve

Fig. 2—Schematic of an ESP and its components. This petroleum-production system can be divided into three parts and can be
represented by three sets of curves: IPR, ESP, and VLP.

• VLP: This forms the outflow equation for the case in
which the selected node is the discharge pressure (see
Eq. 7).
• IPR: This forms the inflow equation for the case in
which the selected node is the intake pressure (see
Eq. 10).
• VLP – ESP: This curve is formed by subtracting the
ESP curve from the VLP curve. This forms the out-
flow equation for the case in which the selected node
is the intake pressure (see Eq. 11).
Having depicted Eqs. 4 through 11 graphically allows for easy
analysis of the downhole-production system by selecting the node
of choice. For the case in which the selected node is the intake
pressure, the operating point is formed by the intersection of the
IPR with the VLP – ESP curve. For the case in which the selected
node is the discharge pressure, the operating point is formed by
the intersection of the IPR þ ESP curve with the VLP curve.
Evaluation of the changes that are observed at the two nodes,
and comparing them against each other, makes it possible to
determine which part of the production system has changed: the
IPR, ESP, or VLP. What is crucial in these evaluations is that the
tangent of the IPR þ ESP curve at a given flow rate is always
greater than the tangent of the IPR curve at the same flow rate.
Likewise, the tangent of the VLP – ESP curve at a given flow rate
is always greater than the tangent of the VLP curve at the same
flow rate. The underlying cause is that the ESP curve is always
concave down.
There is an intrinsic difference between the accuracy of meas-
ured pressure data and measured flow-rate data. The accuracy of
modern pressure gauges is very high, up to several decimals of a
bar if calibrated correctly. The production rate of an oil well is,
however, difficult to measure and difficult to calculate; every
flowmeter device is prone to errors that are several orders of mag-
nitude larger than the inaccuracy of pressure gauges. Furthermore,
because of the costs associated with flowmeters, the decision is
often made not to install these devices in each well, therefore
making it difficult to allocate production to the individual wells,
which results in an even larger uncertainty in the well’s flow rate.
These problems are fully bypassed by the nodal-analysis
method, including ESPs with intake pressure (Pi) gauges and dis-
charge pressure (Pd) gauges because this method allows for an
evaluation of the production system at the downhole nodes, even
if the flow rates are unknown or carry a large uncertainty. This
lies in the fact that whether the flow rate is known by the engineer
or not, the mass flow upstream of the node always equals the mass
flow downstream of the node. This means that an evaluation of
the system can be made by neglecting the flow rates, and looking
only at the variations in the pressure changes observed on the
intake and discharge sensors. The fact that flow rates are redun-
dant in this methodology also becomes clear from Fig. 3. The
flow rate is independent of the selected node, and both nodes
always have the same flow rate.
The method presented here can be applied only in case the com-
pletion contains a packer, such that annulus flow is not possible

78 February 2016 SPE Production & Operations

ID: jaganm Time: 00:01 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/150036/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##150036

 PO178433 DOI: 10.2118/178433-PA Date: 4-February-16
IPR + ESP
VLP Node = Pdischarge
Pressure
IPR
VLP – ESP Node = Pintake
Flow Rate
Fig. 3—System-performance diagram for IPR, ESP, and VLP,
where both intake and discharge pressure gauges are present.
The IPR 1 ESP curve can be constructed by adding the ESP-
performance curve, normalized for density, to the IPR curve.
Likewise, the VLP – ESP curve can be constructed by subtract-
ing the ESP-performance curve, normalized for density, from
the VLP curve. For the case in which the intake pressure is
selected as node, the operating point is found by intersecting
the IPR with the VLP – ESP curve. For the case in which the dis-
charge pressure is selected as node, the operating point is
found by intersecting the IPR 1 ESP with the VLP curve. Note
that the calculated flow rate is independent of the choice of the
node.
and the downstream flow is not split into two individual flow paths,
each having their own lift performance. Combined annulus and
tubing flow, possibly having different backpressures, would lead to
additional complexity for which this method is not valid.
Six possible situations can be faced during operation of an
ESP: improving/decreasing performance upstream of the intake
pressure gauge, improving/decreasing performance between the
intake and the discharge pressure gauges, and improving/decreas-
ing performance downstream of the discharge pressure gauge. For
the sake of simplicity, the theoretical basis of three of these six
situations only are described in the following sections (decreasing
IPR, decreasing ESP performance, and decreasing VLP); the other
three can be deduced likewise.
B A
ΔPd
Pressure
D C
ΔPi
Decreasing
IPR
Flow Rate
Fig. 4—System-performance diagram for changing IPR. Shown
is the situation for decreasing IPR (dotted lines). If the IPR
decreases, both Pd and Pi decrease, but the decrease in Pi is
greater than the decrease in Pd. A 5 discharge node; intersec-
tion between IPR 1 ESP and VLP; good IPR. B 5 discharge
node; intersection between IPR 1 ESP and VLP; bad IPR.
C 5 intake node; intersection between IPR and VLP – ESP;
good IPR. D 5 intake node; intersection between IPR and VLP –
ESP; bad IPR.
February 2016 SPE Production & Operations
ID: jaganm Time: 00:02 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/150036/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##150036
Stage: Page: 79 Total Pages: 9
Decreasing ESP B A
performance
ΔPd
Pressure
Decreasing ESP ΔPi
performance
D
C
Flow Rate
Fig. 5—System-performance diagram for changing ESP per-
formance. Shown is the situation for decreasing ESP perform-
ance. If the ESP performance decreases, then Pd decreases,
while Pi increases. A 5 discharge node; intersection between
IPR 1 ESP and VLP; good ESP performance. B 5 discharge
node; intersection between IPR 1 ESP and VLP; bad ESP per-
formance. C 5 intake node; intersection between IPR and VLP –
ESP; good ESP performance. D 5 intake node; intersection
between IPR and VLP – ESP; bad ESP performance.
Effect of Decreasing IPR
Fig. 4 shows the situation for the case in which the IPR has
decreased over time. This situation can be evaluated at the intake
node or at the discharge node.
• Evaluation at the intake node: Operating point is formed ini-
tially by the intersection of the IPR with the VLP – ESP
curve, which is indicated by (C). If the IPR decreases, then
the operating point will shift to (D). In other words, the
operating point has shifted a certain DPi.
• Evaluation at the discharge node: Operating point is formed
initially by the intersection of the IPR þ ESP with the VLP
curve, which is indicated by (A). If the IPR decreases, then
the operating point will shift to (B), because the IPR þ ESP
will also decrease. In other words, the operating point has
shifted a certain DPd.
It can be seen in Fig. 4 that, although both Pd and Pi have
decreased as a consequence of decreasing IPR, the change in Pi is
larger than the change in Pd. It is important to realize that the flow
rate at (A) equals the flow rate at (C), and the flow rate at (B)
equals the flow rate at (D). Further analysis would also show that
irrespective of how much the IPR decreases, the change in Pi is
always larger than the change in Pd. This means that it is not
required to know what the actual flow rate is; simply observing
that DPi > DPd is enough to conclude that the IPR has decreased.
The same applies for an increasing IPR; if the IPR increases,
both Pi and Pd will increase, but DPi will always be larger
than DPd.
Summary of the effects of changing IPR on the pressure values
at the node:
• Decreasing IPR: Pi ; and Pd ;, and DPi > DPd.
• Increasing IPR: Pi : and Pd :, and DPi > DPd.
Effect of Decreasing ESP Performance
Fig. 5 shows the situation for the case in which the ESP perform-
ance has decreased over time, either intentionally (e.g., operating
at lower frequency) or unintentionally (e.g., mechanical or electri-
cal degradation, scale deposition inside the pump). This situation
can be evaluated at the intake node or at the discharge node.
• Evaluation at the intake node: Operating point is formed ini-
tially by the intersection of the IPR with the VLP – ESP
curve, which is indicated by (C). If the ESP performance has
decreased, then the operating point will shift to (D). In other
words, the operating point has shifted a certain DPi.
79
 PO178433 DOI: 10.2118/178433-PA Date: 4-February-16
Decreasing VLP
B at (A) equals the flow rate at (C), and the flow rate at (B) equals
A
ΔPd
Pressure
ΔPi
D
C
Flow Rate
Fig. 6—System-performance diagram for changing VLP. Shown
is the situation for decreasing VLP. If the VLP decreases, then
both Pd and Pi increase; the DPd is larger than the DPi.
A 5 discharge node; intersection between IPR 1 ESP and VLP;
good VLP. B 5 discharge node; intersection between IPR 1 ESP
and VLP; bad VLP. C 5 intake node; intersection between IPR
and VLP – ESP; good VLP. D 5 intake node; intersection
between IPR and VLP – ESP; bad VLP.
• Evaluation at the discharge node: Operating point is formed
initially by the intersection of the IPR þ ESP with the VLP
curve, which is indicated by (A). If the ESP performance
decreases, then the operating point will shift to (B). In other
words, the operating point has shifted a certain DPd.
It can be seen in Fig. 5 that Pi has increased while Pd has
decreased as a consequence of decreasing ESP performance. It is
important to realize that the flow rate at (A) equals the flow rate at
(C), and the flow rate at (B) equals the flow rate at (D).
The same applies for an increasing ESP performance; if the per-
formance increases, then Pi will decrease while Pd will increase.
Summary of the effects of changing ESP on the pressure val-
ues at the node:
• Decreasing ESP performance: Pi : and Pd ;.
• Increasing ESP performance: Pi ; and Pd :.
Effect of Decreasing VLP
Fig. 6 shows the situation for the case in which the VLP has
decreased over time. This situation can be evaluated at the intake
node or at the discharge node.
• Evaluation at the intake node: Operating point is formed ini-
tially by the intersection of the IPR with the VLP – ESP
curve, which is indicated by (C). If the VLP decreases, then
the operating point will shift to (D). In other words, the
operating point has shifted a certain DPi.
• Evaluation at the discharge node: Operating point is formed
initially by the intersection of the IPR þ ESP with the VLP
curve, which is indicated by (A). If the VLP decreases, then
the operating point will shift to (B). In other words, the oper-
ating point has shifted a certain DPd.
Table 1—Summary of nodal analysis of the downhole production system, including ESPs with intake
gauges and discharge gauges. Gray-shaded cells are gauge responses. Nonshaded cells are the
causes of the gauge responses. Example: In the case in which an increase in Pi is observed in
combination with an increase in Pd, but with the change in Pi being less than the change in Pd, then the
tubing performance decreased.
80
ID: jaganm Time: 00:02 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/150036/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##150036
Stage: Page: 80 Total Pages: 9
It can be seen in Fig. 6 that both Pd and Pi have increased as a
consequence of decreasing VLP, and the change in Pi is smaller
than the change in Pd. It is important to realize that the flow rate
the flow rate at (D). Further analysis also shows that irrespective
of how much the VLP deteriorates, the change in Pi is always
smaller than the change in Pd. This means that it is not required to
know what the actual flow rate is; simply observing that
DPi < DPd is enough to conclude that the VLP decreased.
The same applies for an increasing VLP. If the VLP increases,
then both Pi and Pd will decrease, but DPi will always be smaller
than DPd.
Summary of the effects of changing VLP on the pressure val-
ues at the node:
• Decreasing VLP: Pi : and Pd :, and DPi < DPd.
• Increasing VLP: Pi ; and Pd ;, and DPi < DPd.
Practical Implementation and Use
The nodal analyses for the six situations described in the previous
sections (improving/decreasing IPR, improving/decreasing ESP
performance, improving/decreasing VLP) are summarized in
Table 1. This table can be used to evaluate the performance of the
downhole production system by comparing the observed changes
in intake pressures and discharge pressures.
Advantages of using Table 1:
• Quick and easy evaluation of the changing flow rates and
downhole pressures or evaluation of the impact of well inter-
ventions. Often, engineers are faced with the observation
that a well’s liquid-production rate is decreasing. Table 1
can be used to assign this decline to the reservoir, to the
ESP, or to the production tubing; no detailed and time-con-
suming models of the reservoir, ESP, and tubing need to be
made by use of commercial software packages.
• An ESP map does not need to be available to the engineer,
provided that the isofrequency lines are concave downward
in the range of operation, which is the case for the vast ma-
jority of ESPs.
• (Accurate) Liquid-production rates are not required to ana-
lyze changing downhole circumstances. Such a situation
might arise in the case where the liquid production of the
well is unknown or inaccurate, or when the changes in down-
hole liquid rate are simply too small to be observed at surface.
Simply observing whether the intake and discharge pressures
have increased or decreased, and the relative change in value
to each other, allows for the localization of the problem, after
which mitigations or solutions can be sought.
Field Examples
Several field examples from the Rijn oil field, offshore The
Netherlands, are given in the following subsections. These exam-
ples highlight how this method can help answer the following fre-
quently occurring questions:
• Why is the well’s liquid-production rate decreasing?
• What do the observed changes in downhole pressures mean?
Note that this method is applicable for all time ranges. In the
examples, the time ranges vary from 200 days to just a couple of
February 2016 SPE Production & Operations
 PO178433 DOI: 10.2118/178433-PA Date: 4-February-16 Stage: Page: 81 Total Pages: 9

95

Pintake (bar)
90

85

80

Pdischarge (bar)
196

194

192

190
2500
Qliquid (B/D)

2400

2300

2200
Frequency (Hz)

40
30
20
10
0
01-Aug-13

21-Aug-13

10-Sep-13

30-Sep-13

20-Oct-13

09-Nov-13

29-Nov-13

19-Dec-13

08-Jan-14

28-Jan-14

17-Feb-14
Fig. 7—Field Example 1: Decreasing reservoir performance. Both intake pressure and discharge pressure are decreasing, but the
difference in intake pressure is greater than the difference in discharge pressure. Time range is 200 days.

minutes. Some of the examples show the effects of deliberately
induced changes, such as reversing the direction of rotation of the
ESP. Although analysis of such an example has no practical
meaning (it is already known what the changes in downhole pres-
sures are caused by), it shows that the method is sound and can be
used with confidence in case unexpected changes to the system
are observed.
Field Example 1: Decreasing Reservoir Performance. Between
1 August 2013 and 9 February 2014, a slight, but clear decrease in
liquid-production rate from 2,500 to 2,300 B/D was observed
(Fig. 7). During the same time interval, the intake pressure
decreased from 93 to 86 bar, with a distinct additional drop to 81
bar during the last few days before the well was temporarily shut-
in. The decrease in discharge pressure over the same time interval
was from 195 to 190 bar. The frequency was kept constant over
this time interval. Pressure-buildup analysis confirmed that the
reservoir pressure had not decreased between August 2013 and
February 2014 as a consequence of pressure maintenance because
of water injection into nearby injection wells. The observed
downhole pressures show that Pi ; and Pd ;, and DPi > DPd. Fol-
lowing Table 1, the conclusion of this analysis is that the reservoir
performance has decreased, and the decreasing production is not
caused by decreasing ESP or tubing performance. The exact root
cause of this analysis is not known; it might be caused by
increased skin (scaling is a frequently occurring problem in this
oil field) or by shallowing of the holdup depth (the reservoir is
prone to sand production), thereby partly blocking the perfora-
tions. Because of the high water cut (95%), the decision was
made not to try to improve the IPR by means of an acid wash or
deepening of the holdup depth.
Field Example 2: Changing Multiphase-Flow Regime in the
Tubing. The well in this example showed clear oscillating
behavior in intake pressure, discharge pressure, tubinghead pres-
sure, tubinghead temperature, and current (Fig. 8). It is believed
that these were the expressions of gas slugging in the tubing. In
an attempt to bring this unstable flow regime to a halt, the well
was shut in at surface by closing the wing valve, while the ESP
kept running (deadheading), followed by an abrupt reopening of
the wing valve. The effect was that the oscillations faded out and
the well entered a more stable flow regime for the next 22 hours,
after which the ESP was stopped deliberately. Subsequent dead-
heading attempts were, however, less successful in stopping the
oscillations. The difference in intake pressure before and after
deadheading was 1.5 bar, while the difference in discharge pres-
sure before and after deadheading was 2.5 bar. Both pressures
decreased after deadheading. The observed downhole pressures
show that Pi ; and Pd ;, and DPi < DPd. Following Table 1, the
conclusion of this analysis is that the tubing performance
increased after deadheading. The interpretation is that the tubing
was initially in a slugging regime, but entered a more-stable mul-
tiphase-flow regime after deadheading, with consequently less
pressure drop along the tubing.
When zooming in at the intake and discharge pressures (Fig. 9),
the two pressures are fluctuating and continuously in phase. DPd is,
however, larger than DPi. Following Table 1, the interpretation is
that the tubing performance was fluctuating continuously. This is
an additional indication that the tubing was suffering from gas slug-
ging before deadheading. This is, of course, also confirmed by the
fluctuating tubinghead pressure and temperature.
Field Example 3: Reversing the Direction of Rotation of the
ESP. The ESP of the well in this example was started in the
reversed direction of rotation on 14 April 2014 at 10:10. The
small drop in Pi when the pump started running suggests that the
flow rate was very low, possibly close to zero. Half an hour later,
the direction of rotation was reversed abruptly into the correct
direction, the reason for which falls outside the scope of this arti-
cle. It is known that rotating in the incorrect direction results in

February 2016 SPE Production & Operations 81

ID: jaganm Time: 00:02 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/150036/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##150036

 PO178433 DOI: 10.2118/178433-PA Date: 4-February-16 Stage: Page: 82 Total Pages: 9

115

Pintake (bar)
110

105

100

Pdischarge (bar)
175

155

135
Pressure (bar)
Tubinghead

30

20

10

0
Temperature (°C)

73
Tubinghead

71
69
67
65
90
Current (A)

80
70
60
50
40
00:00

04:00

08:00

12:00

16:00

20:00

00:00
09-Oct-14

09-Oct-14

09-Oct-14

09-Oct-14

09-Oct-14

09-Oct-14

10-Oct-14
Fig. 8—Field Example 2: Changing multiphase-flow regime in the tubing. At 07:35 on 9 October 2014, the wing valve was closed in
an attempt to bring the fluctuation to a halt. Average intake pressure was 106 bar before deadheading and 104 bar after deadhead-
ing. Average discharge pressure before deadheading was 142 bar and 139 bar after deadheading. Time range is 24 hours.

suboptimum ESP performance. This also becomes apparent when changing the rotation direction is approximately 10 bar (Fig. 10).
comparing the intake and discharge pressures. The difference in The observed downhole pressures show that Pi ; and Pd :. Follow-
intake pressure before and after changing the rotation direction is ing Table 1, this confirms that the ESP performance has improved
25 bar, while the difference in discharge pressure before and after by changing into the correct direction of rotation.

108
Pintake (bar)

106

104

102
Pdischarge (bar)

145

143

141

139
02:00

02:15

02:30

02:45

03:00

03:15

03:30

03:45

04:00
09-Oct-14

09-Oct-14

09-Oct-14

09-Oct-14

09-Oct-14

09-Oct-14

09-Oct-14

09-Oct-14

09-Oct-14

Fig. 9—Detail of Fig. 8. It is clearly visible that the waves in the intake pressure and discharge pressure are in phase: Pi increases
when Pd increases and vice versa. Also visible is that the change in Pd (2 to 3 bar) is greater than the change in Pi (1 bar). Time
range is 2 hours.

82 February 2016 SPE Production & Operations

ID: jaganm Time: 00:02 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/150036/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##150036

 PO178433 DOI: 10.2118/178433-PA Date: 4-February-16 Stage: Page: 83 Total Pages: 9

180

Pintake (bar)
160
140
120
100

200

Pdischarge (bar)
180
160
140
120

65
Current (A)

55
45
35
25
Frequency (Hz)

30

20

10

0
10:05

10:10

10:15

10:20

10:25

10:30

10:35

10:40

10:45
14-Apr-14

14-Apr-14

14-Apr-14

14-Apr-14

14-Apr-14

14-Apr-14

14-Apr-14

14-Apr-14

14-Apr-14
Fig. 10—Field Example 3: Reversing the direction of rotation of the ESP. The direction of rotation was reversed into the correct one
at 10:38. At this moment, the intake pressure decreases by 25 bar, while the discharge pressure increases by approximately 10 bar,
although the discharge pressure has not yet fully stabilized. Time range is 40 minutes.

Field Example 4: Increase in ESP Frequency
On 1 January 2014, it was decided to increase the frequency of the
ESP of this well in steps of 2 Hz/month (Fig. 11) to boost the oil
production. As a consequence of the increasing frequency, the
intake pressure decreased from 87.5 to 69 bar, while the discharge
pressure increased from 174 to 179 bar. The observed downhole
pressures show that Pi ; and Pd :. Following Table 1, this shows
that the ESP boost pressure increased over this time interval. As a
result of water injection in nearby wells, the reservoir pressure was
kept constant over this time interval; hence, the decreasing intake
pressure could not be caused by decreasing reservoir pressure. This
is also confirmed by the fact that the discharge pressure increased
during the same time interval. If it was the reservoir pressure that
declined, then the discharge pressure should have declined also. It
is, of course, a logical conclusion that the ESP performance has
improved; increasing the frequency obviously results in improved
performance. It shows nevertheless that the methodology is sound
and could be applied in cases in which, for example, the effective-
ness of an acid wash of the ESP needs to be evaluated.
Notes of Caution
In this paper, the manner in which a few data sources (flowing
downhole pressures and sometimes flow rates) are used to analyze
downhole production problems is presented. It is good engineer-
ing practice to combine every available data source, and not to
rely on this method alone, especially when multiple components
of the production system are affected by the same disturbances.
Flow-assurance phenomena such as solids or scale deposition fre-
quently appear simultaneously in the reservoir, ESP, and tubing.
Changing water cut or changing gas/oil ratio are induced by the
reservoir and are simultaneously affecting the reservoir, ESP, and
tubing performance. Pressure disturbances in the tubing or back-
pressure changes also create pressure disturbances in the upstream
gauges, meaning that the pressure signal seen by the ESP is over-
printed. Depending on the magnitude of these disturbances, the
absolute pressures, and the fluid properties, this overprint may or
may not be significant. Furthermore, understanding changes in
reservoir pressure can also be important. These cases illustrate
some complexity, but diagnosing ESP systems can be more com-
plicated. It is, however, up to the engineer to judge the applicabil-
ity of the described method.
The methodology can only be applied if an unvented packer is
installed in the completion, such that the only downstream-flow
path is the tubing. Care must be taken when the pump is operating
at very low flow rates at which some pump maps are not concave
downward. Care must also be taken when the operating point on
the lift curve is left of the minimum, although it is doubtful
whether such a condition actually exists because this is a highly
unstable situation (Beggs 2003).
Conclusions
The method described in this paper uses the classical nodal-anal-
ysis approach and extends it with ESPs containing intake pres-
sure gauges and discharge pressure gauges. Analysis of the
changes in intake and discharge pressures can quickly identify
which part of the system is affecting the production perform-
ance: the reservoir, the ESP, or the production tubing. All combi-
nations of gauge responses and their causes are summarized in
Table 1, which allows for a qualitative evaluation of the observa-
tions. This method is applicable to any downhole pump with
intake and discharge pressure gauges. Even if pump maps are
not available, or when the well’s liquid-flow rates are not (accu-
rately) known, it is a reliable method to understand downhole-
production problems.

February 2016 SPE Production & Operations 83

ID: jaganm Time: 00:02 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/150036/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##150036

 PO178433 DOI: 10.2118/178433-PA Date: 4-February-16 Stage: Page: 84 Total Pages: 9

140

Pintake (bar)
120

100

80

60

Pdischarge (bar)
180

170

160
Pressure (bar)

30
Tubinghead

20

10

60
Current (A)

40

20

0
Frequency (Hz)

50

45

40

35
01-Jan-14

21-Jan-14

10-Feb-14

02-Mar-14

22-Mar-14

11-Apr-14

01-May-14

21-May-14
Fig. 11—Field Example 4: Increase in ESP frequency. The frequency was increased every month by 2 Hz, resulting in a decrease in
intake pressure and an increase in discharge pressure. Time range is 6 months.

Acknowledgments Vogel, J. V. 1968. Inflow Performance Relationships for Solution-Gas

The author would like to thank TAQA Energy for granting per-
mission to publish Rijn oilfield data, and Reigh MacPherson
(MacPherson Energy Consulting) and Steven Armstrong (TAQA
Bratani Limited) for their valuable contributions.
References
Beggs, H. D. 2003. Production Optimization Using Nodal Analysis, sec-
ond edition. Tulsa, Oklahoma: OGCI and Petroskills Publications.
Heriot-Watt University. 2004. Production Technology. MSc course, Edin-
burgh, UK.
Takacs, G. 2009. Electrical Submersible Pumps Manual: Design, Opera-
tions, and Maintenance. Burlington, Massachusetts: Gulf Professional
Publishing.
Drive Wells. J Pet Technol 20 (1): 83–92. SPE-1476-PA. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/1476-PA.
Pieter Bruijnen is a petroleum engineer at TAQA Energy in The
Netherlands. Previously, he worked as a geologist and reser-
voir engineer for SGS Horizon. Bruijnen’s interests include
static and dynamic reservoir characterization, reservoir per-
formance, well performance, and production optimization.
He holds an MSc degree in geology from Utrecht University
in The Netherlands, and an MSc degree in petroleum engi-
neering from Heriot-Watt University, UK. Bruijnen is a member
of SPE.

84 February 2016 SPE Production & Operations

ID: jaganm Time: 00:02 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/150036/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##150036