Pedersen 2006

REVIEW AND APPLICATION OF THE
TULSA LIQUID JET PUMP MODEL

Pl Jtun Pedersen

Trondheim
December 2006
Review and Application of the Tulsa Liquid J et Pump Model December 2006

Preface

This report is a mandatory project assignment in the 9
th
semester of the petroleum production
engineering studies at NTNU. It was written at the institute for petroleum technology and
applied geophysics, fall 2006. The assignment consists of 71 pages, and was delivered the 19
th

of December 2006.

I would like to thank Professor J n Steinar Gumundsson for good help and advice
throughout the project. Also, I am very grateful for all the help I have got from the people at
Petroleum Experts Ltd., regarding the version update of PROSPER.

I

Summary

As a water drive reservoir is depleted, production will fall and inflow decrease. As a
consequence of this, the well will either stop flowing or produce only a limited amount of oil
and gas. In these cases, an artificial lift system can be installed to increase the production and
save the well. One of these lift systems is the J et Pump.

The J et Pump operates on the principle of the venturi tube, converting pressure into velocity
head by injecting power fluid through a nozzle. This creates a suction effect which drives the
production fluid through the pump. At the diffuser the velocity head is converted into
pressure, allowing the mix of power and production fluid to flow to the surface through the
return conduit.

There have been made several theoretical models for the J et Pump. Among these are the one
reviewed in this project: Performance model for Hydraulic J et Pumping of two-phase fluids
by Baohua J iao from 1988. The model is an approach to calculate pump performance while
pumping a compressible fluid. Important elements in the model are the nozzle and throat-
diffuser friction factors. The nozzle friction factor is estimated by optimisation based on high
pressure data, while the equation for the throat-diffuser friction factor is developed using
regression analysis. The dimensionless pressure recovery, N, and the efficiency, is very
dependent on these values. Especially is it dependent on the throat-diffuser friction factor,
which again depends on the gas-oil ratio.

Calculations were performed on a North Sea well with a gas-oil ratio on 95
3 3
Sm Sm , using
both the Tulsa model and models based on incompressible flow. The calculated efficiency
was, as expected, higher for the models based on incompressible flow.

The well performance program PROSPER was used for pressure drop calculations. Also, the
J et Pump function in the program gave about similar results as the Tulsa model. Perhaps is the
Tulsa model used as the J et Pump function in this program. Anyhow, the similarity in results
between the Tulsa model and PROSPER indicates that the calculations performed in this
project is reasonable and that the model is applicable to a field situation as presented here.
II

Table of contents

1. Introduction............................................................................................................................ 1
2. J et Pump Literature Survey.................................................................................................... 2
2.1 When is artificial lift required.......................................................................................... 2
2.2 J et Pump compared to other artificial lift methods.......................................................... 3
2.4 J et Pump principles.......................................................................................................... 4
3. Review of the Tulsa J et Pump Model .................................................................................... 5
3.1 Development of the model ............................................................................................... 5
3.2 Presentation of the model and its main principles............................................................ 6
4. Tulsa J et Pump performance.................................................................................................. 9
4.1 Main factors to control pump performance...................................................................... 9
4.2 Sizing of the pump......................................................................................................... 10
5. Application of the Tulsa J et Pump Model............................................................................ 13
5.1 Sizing and performance calculations.............................................................................. 13
5.2 Evaluation of results....................................................................................................... 17
6. Application of the Tulsa model on a North Sea well ........................................................... 18
6.1 Case description............................................................................................................. 18
6.2 Model calculations......................................................................................................... 19
6.3 Evaluation of results....................................................................................................... 22
7. Application of Other Models on a North Sea Well .............................................................. 23
7.1 J SG model calculations.................................................................................................. 23
7.2 NTNU project calculations............................................................................................. 24
8. Discussion............................................................................................................................ 28
9. Conclusion............................................................................................................................ 30
10. References.......................................................................................................................... 31
11. Tables................................................................................................................................. 32
12. Figures................................................................................................................................ 34
13. Appendixes......................................................................................................................... 46

III
1. Introduction

In the course of a fields life, reservoir pressure will fall and inflow decline. As a water drive
reservoir is depleted, water cut will rise and production decrease. This can cause wells either
to stop flowing or to produce only limited amounts of oil. In these cases, different artificial lift
systems can be installed to save the well and increase production. A wide range of artificial
lift systems are available. The choice of lift system is dependent on well characteristics, well
location and costs considerations. One of these lift systems is the one reviewed in this paper:
the Hydraulic J et Pump.

Several different J et Pump models have been developed, varying in accuracy and complexity.
However, few models for predicting the behaviour of compressible flow are developed.
Among these few models is the Performance model for Hydraulic J et Pumping of two-phase
fluids by Baohua J iao, published in a thesis at Tulsa University in 1988 (in this project
referred to as the Tulsa model).

The project assignment is to review the Tulsa model, convert the basic equations to SI and
perform calculations for a production well in the North Sea, using PROSPER for pressure
drop calculations. Then, look at previous NTNU projects/thesis and perform calculations on
the North Sea well with a few other models. Finally, compare the results with the Tulsa
model.

The project starts with a literature survey of the J et Pump, giving a brief introduction to the
J et Pump principles, different J et Pump models and comparison between J et Pump and other
artificial J et Pump models. In chapter 3, 4 and 5 the Tulsa J et Pump model is introduced and
documented, and in chapter 6 the model is used for calculations on a North Sea well. Chapter
7 contains calculations using other models, for comparison.

1

2. Jet Pump Literature Survey

2.1 When is artificial lift required

The objective of any artificial lift system is to add energy to the produced fluids, either to
accelerate or to enable production.

Some wells may simply flow more efficiently on artificial lift, others require artificial lift to
get started and will then proceed to flow on natural lift, others yet may not flow at all on
natural flow. In any of these cases, the cost of the artificial lift system must be compared to
the gained production and increased income. In clear cut cases, such as on-shore stripper
wells where the bulk of the operating costs are the lifting costs, the problem is usually not
present. In more complex situations, which are common in the North Sea, designing and
optimising an artificial lift system can be a comprehensive and difficult exercise. This
requires the involvement of a number of parties, from sub-surface engineering to production
operations.

The requirement for artificial lift systems are usually presented later in a fields life, when
reservoir pressure decline and well productivity drop. If a situation is anticipated where
artificial lift will be required or will be cost effective later in a fields life, it may be
advantageous to install the artificial lift equipment up front and use it to accelerate production
throughout the fields life.

All reservoirs contain energy in the form of pressure, in the compressed fluid itself and in the
rock, due to the overburden. Pressure can be artificially maintained or enhanced by injecting
gas or water into the reservoir. This is commonly known as pressure maintenance. Artificial
lift systems distinguish themselves from pressure maintenance by adding energy to the
produced fluids in the well; the energy is not transferred to the reservoir. (J ahn, Cook &
Graham, 1998)
2

2
2.2 Jet Pump compared to other artificial lift methods

The J et Pump has many advantages towards other artificial lift systems. There are no moving
parts, the pump is tolerant not only of corrosive and abrasive well fluids, but also of various
power fluids. Maintenance and repair are infrequent and inexpensive, the pump can be
replaced without pulling the tubing (casing type installation) and it consists of few parts. The
pumps are suitable for deep wells, directional wells, crooked wells, subsea production wells,
wells with high viscosity, high paraffin, high sand content, and particularly for wells with
GOR up to 180
3
3
Sm
Sm
. Also, the pureness of the power fluid can be relatively low compared to
the quality of for instance the hydraulic piston pump power fluid. Other great advantages of
the jet pumps are that water can be used as power fluid and that the power source can be
remotely located and can handle high volume rates. Hydraulic J et Pumps are adaptable to all
existing hydraulic pump bottomhole assemblies, can handle free gas and are applicable
offshore.

However, using a J et Pump as the artificial lift solution will also bring disadvantages. First
and foremost, its a relatively inefficient lift method. As seen in Figure 4, the hydraulic
efficiency of the J et Pump is very low compared to for instance the Progressive cavity pump
(PC) or the Beam Pump (BP). It also requires at least 20% submergence to approach best lift
efficiency and is very sensitive to changes in backpressure. Also, the pump requires high
surface power fluid pressure.

The casing type installation is the most common solution, using the casing-tubing annulus as
the return conduit and the tubing as the power fluid string. For this type of installation, the
production of free gas through the pump causes reduction in the ability to handle liquids. The
advantage is, as mentioned above, that the J et Pump can be replaced without pulling the
tubing. (Brown, 1982, J iao, 1988)
1,3

Figure 4 shows a comparison for the different artificial lift methods.

3
2.4 Jet Pump principles

J et Pumps operate on the principle of the venturi tube. A high-pressure driving fluid (power
fluid) is ejected through a nozzle, where pressure is converted to velocity head. The high
velocity low pressure jet flow draws the production fluid into the pump throat where both
fluid mix. A diffuser then converts the kinetic energy of the mixture into pressure, allowing
the mixed fluids to flow to the surface through the return conduit. (J iao, 1988)
1

Figure 2 illustrates the principle.

4

3. Review of the Tulsa Jet Pump Model

3.1 Development of the model

The Tulsa J et Pump model is presented in the thesis Performance Model for Hydraulic J et
Pumping of Two-Phase Fluids by Baohua J iao from 1988. The model is based on
experimental studies conducted at Tulsa University, and is a further development of the model
presented in his master thesis Behaviour of Hydraulic J et Pumps When Handling a Gas-
Liquid Mixture from 1985.

Experimental studies were performed using a mixture of water and air as the production fluid
and water as the power fluid. The operating pressures were set to typical values found in the
field, with power fluid, for example, reaching 3000 psig (20 MPa) and production intake fluid
exceeding 1200 psig (8.3 MPa). The performance data acquired were the power fluid
pressure, the pressures at the intake and discharge, the flow rates of the power fluid, the two
phases of the production fluid, and the appropriate temperature so that the air-liquid ratio
could be computed. For further description of the experimental facility and test data it is
referred to the thesis.

The analysis of the data followed the model of Petrie, Wilson and Smart (PWS). This model
is based on conservation of mass and energy, and is widely familiar to production engineers.
The PWS model and the Tulsa model differ only in the treatment of the two empirical,
dimensionless parameters, and , which are the loss parameters for the nozzle and the
throat-diffuser, respectively. The objective of both models is to predict a dimensionless
pressure recovery ratio, N, as a function of a dimensionless mass flow ratio, M. (J iao, 1988)
n
K
td
K
1

5

3.2 Presentation of the model and its main principles

The model is originally derived in oilfield-units, but is presented here in SI-units. Conversion
from field to SI-units is a task specifically mentioned in the project-description, and is
conducted on both the Derivation of the J et Pump Model (Appendix A) and the Pump
Sizing Procedure (Appendix B). Following is a presentation of the main principles of the
Tulsa model. For the model derivation in its entirety it is referred to Appendix A. The
terminology used in the model is detailed in the Nomenclature (Appendix A, page 61-62) and
shown in Figure 1. The brackets on the right side of the mathematical expressions contain the
equation number in the derivation.

As mentioned earlier, the purpose of the model is to predict pressure recovery, N, as a
function of dimensionless mass flow ratio, M.

The dimensionless pressure recovery is the pressure increase over the pump divided by the
pressure difference between the drive fluid and the pump discharge. Mathematically its
defined as follows:

d p
i d
P P
P P
N
.(19)

The dimensionless mass flow ratio between the suction (producing) fluid and the power fluid
is defined as:

p
i
p
i
nozzle
ake
Q
Q
Q
Q
m
m
M = =
int
,

for one phase flow, assuming equal density for the two fluids.

Extended to include gas, the mass flow ratio can be expressed as:

p
ia i
Q
Q Q
M
227 . 1 +
= .(37)
6

As shown in the derivation of the pump model (Appendix A).The numerator in equation (37)
describes the total producing fluid mass flow. This includes both liquid and gas, where the
term represents the gas mass flow (derivation page 56-58).
ia
Q 227 . 1

In the Tulsa thesis, it is assumed equal density for the power fluid and the produced liquid
phase. For an oil production case with high water cut, it could be argued that in equation
(37) should be adjusted for difference in oil and water density.
i
Q

The product of the two parameters N and M is the ratio of the transferred useful power to
consumed input power. Explained mathematically:

M N Efficiency = = .(38)

The model use a functional form of ) (M f N = that is based on work by Cunningham
4
, who
developed this function on mass energy conservation principles. Simplifying the typing of this
function, two component elements are defined:

[ ]
2 2 2
) 1 /( ) )( 2 1 ( 2 R R M R R B + = .(39)

2 2
) 1 ( M R C + = .(40)

where R is the ratio of the nozzle to throat area. As shown in the derivation (Appendix A) N
can be written:

C K B K
C K B
N
td n
td
) 1 ( ) 1 (
) 1 (
+ + +
+
= .(41)

where and are the dimensionless loss parameters for the nozzle and throat-diffuser,
respectively.
n
K
td
K

7
In the above expression of N, the importance of the loss parameters is obvious. The nozzle
loss parameter, , is in this model set to 0.04. This value was estimated in the Tulsa thesis
from optimization based on high pressure data.
n
K

td
K is a combination of the loss parameter for the throat and the diffuser , respectively.
The equation for was developed using regression analysis. The analysis was done by a
computer program, performing a multiple linear least squares regression on the logarithms of
the variables and AWR (Air-Water-Ratio). For single-phase flow, the right side of the
equation simplifies to the constant 0.1, as AWR=0. The expression is presented as:
t
K
d
K
td
K
p
R R,

33 . 0 63 . 0 33 . 2 3
) ( ) )( 10 * 88 . 10 ( 1 . 0 R AWR R K
p td

+ = .(43)

where R is the ratio of the nozzle to throat area, is the ratio of the discharge pressure to the
power fluid pressure and AWR is the air-water ratio, equivalent to GOR in a gas-oil system.
p
R

8

4. Tulsa Jet Pump Performance

4.1 Main factors to control pump performance

The performance of the jet pump can be expressed by comparing different important elements
of the J et Pump model. Figures 7-16 are based on data from the thesis-experiment described
in Chapter 3.1 Development of the Model. They illustrate jet pump performance under
varying conditions.

Figure 7 is a plot of the throat-nozzle loss parameter versus air-water-ratio, for three fixed
values of (ratio of discharge pressure to power fluid pressure). The trend shows that an
increasing air-water ratio results in an increasing throat-nozzle friction factor. Figure 8 are the
same plot as Figure 7, but with AWR in field units. is also expressed in figure 9. Here the
throat-nozzle friction factor is plotted against for five different values of AWR. Clearly it
shows that decrease as increase. Hence, referring to equation (19) in chapter 3.2, the
higher pressure recovery ratio the lower the friction loss in the throat and diffuser. Following,
as N increase and M remains the same, the efficiency will increase. Also, the horsepower
needed to drive the power fluid will decrease as the horsepower requirement varies with N
(Appendix B, step 27, 24, 22).
p
R
td
K
p
R
td
K
p
R

Figure 10 shows vs. R with five different values of AWR. As R increase, increase,
the only exception is for AWR=0 where remains constantly equal to 0.1. A common
trend for the plots mentioned is that the throat-nozzle friction factor increase with increasing
air-water-ratio.
td
K
td
K
td
K

The Figures 11 and 13 describe the dimensionless pressure recovery ratio vs. dimensional
mass flow rate. As explained in chapter 3, for optimal performance of the pump it is important
to find the values of N and M that together result in the highest efficiency and lowest power
demand for the power fluid. As seen on Figure 11 and 12, increasing nozzle/throat area ratio
9
results in decreasing flow of the production fluid to the power fluid and overall lower pump
efficiency. The nozzle/throat relation is described in more detail in chapter 4.2.

Figure 13 restates the influence of air (gas) in the system. The higher AWR, the lower the
total efficiency(N*M) and production flow rate to fluid flow rate. This can also be seen on
figure 14. The last two figures, 15 and 16 describes N vs. M and efficiency vs. M for different
values of . influence which again influence N. Decreasing leads to decreasing
efficiency and decreasing production fluid flow to power fluid flow.
p
R
p
R
td
K
p
R

4.2 Sizing of the pump

Dimensioning a jet pump is an important part of a jet pump installation process. The
nozzle/throat combination defines the degree of pump optimization and performance, another
consideration is that a minimum area of throat annulus is required to avoid cavitation.
Following is a description of these two important elements of J et Pump sizing:

The nozzle/throat relation

J et Pump performance is well specific and careful selection of the nozzle/throat combination
is therefore necessary to ensure optimum well performance. Due to this fact, manufacturers of
J et Pumps have made a wide range of nozzles and throats available (Figure 5), where the
optimum combination represents a compromise between maximum oil production and
minimum power fluid rates.

In general, the areas of nozzles and throats increase in geometric progression. Because of this,
fixed area ratios between nozzles and throats, R, can be established. The different
configurations of the nozzle/throat relation are given in Figure 5. A given nozzle (N) matched
to the same number throat (N) will always give the same area ratio, R. This is referred to as an
A ratio. For a given nozzle(N): B, C, D.ratios represent throats with number N+1, N+2 and
N+3 respectively. It is possible to match a given nozzle with a throat which is one size
smaller; this is a A combination (by some manufacturers also referred to as an X
combination). Because of geometric considerations, application of successively smaller
throats is not suitable.
10
A specific nozzle/throat combination is defined by a number, which refers to the nozzle size,
followed by a character which defines the throat size. For example a 10A combination refers
to a 10/10 nozzle/throat combination, a 12B a 12/13 combination and so on (Figure 3).

The A (X)-ratio is for high lift and low production rates compared with the power fluid rate,
while for instance the C ratio is for low lift and high relative production rates. This is
explained in the paper J et Pumping Oil Wells by Petrie, Wilson and Smart:

Physical nozzle and throat sizes determine flow rates while the ratio of their flow areas
determines the trade off between produced head and flow rate. For example, if a throat is
selected such that the area of the nozzle is 60% of the throat area, a relatively high head, low
flow pump will result. There is a comparatively small area around the jet for well fluids to
enter, leading to low production rates compared to the power fluid rate, and with the energy of
the nozzle being transferred to a small amount of production, high heads will be developed.
Such a pump is suited to deep wells with high lifts.

Conversely, if a throat is selected such that the area of the nozzle is only 20% of the throat
area, more production flow is possible. But since the nozzle energy is being transferred to a
large amount of production compared to the power fluid rate, lower heads will be developed.
Shallow wells with low lifts are candidates for such a pump (Petrie, Wilson Smart, 1983,
Allan, Moore, Adair, 1989)
5,6

Cavitation and sizing of throat entrance area

When sizing a hydraulic J et Pump for multiphase flow, one of the most important factors is to
avoid cavitation.

Cavitation can damage the J et Pump, and the throat in particular. When oil reaches the bubble
point, it is saturated with gas, so any lowering of pressure means that more gas will come out
of the solution. The cavitation phenomenon is caused by the collapse of these gas bubbles on
the throat surface as the pressure increases along the jet pump axis (Figure 6). This collapse of
vapour bubbles may cause erosion known as cavitation damage and will decrease the jet
pump performance.

11
Within the throat, pressure must remain above liquid-vapour pressure to prevent throat
cavitation damage. Note that pressure drops below pump-intake pressure as produced fluids
accelerate into the throat mixing zone. If pressure drops below the liquid-vapour pressure,
vapour bubbles will form. The throat entrance pressure is controlled by the velocity of the
produced fluid passing through it. From fluid mechanics we have the Bernoulli equation that
states that as the fluid velocity increase, the fluid pressure will decrease and vica verca.

In order to maintain the throat entrance pressure above the liquid-vapour pressure, the nozzle
and throat combination must be carefully selected. The nozzle and throat flow areas define an
annular flow passage at the throat entrance. This area decides the velocity of the fluid, and
therefore the fluid pressure. The smaller flow area, the higher velocity of the fluid. The static
pressure of the fluid drops as the square of the velocity increase and will reach the vapour
pressure of the fluid at high velocities. This low pressure can cause cavitation. Thus, for a
given production flow rate and a given pump intake pressure, there will be a minimum
annular flow area required to avoid cavitation. (Grupping, Coppes, 1988, Christ, Petrie,
1989,Petrie, Wilson, Smart, 1983)
8,7,5

A step-by-step guide for sizing hydraulic J et Pumps is enclosed in Appendix B. The
procedure was first presented in the Tulsa thesis, and is in this project converted to SI-units.

12
5. Application of the Tulsa Jet Pump Model

5.1 Sizing and performance calculations

Following is a calculation example for the J et Pump Model. This example is originally
presented in the Tulsa thesis, and is included in this project to illustrate the application of the
model. Input data has been converted to SI-units, and calculations have been carried out
following the step by step-procedure enclosed in Appendix B.

The two set of calculations (in this project, 5.1 and in the example in the Tulsa thesis) only
differs in the computing of the Reynolds number. In this project, a considerable higher
Reynolds-number was computed, which results in turbulent flow in the power fluid tubing. In
the Tulsa thesis, laminar flow was calculated in the power tubing. In this project the relation
ud
= Re [SI] is used, while in the Tulsa thesis, the relation
ud
N 124
Re
= [field] is used.
In both cases, the following criteria for flow-regime determination are used: Reynolds
numbers above 2100 implies turbulent flow (transient between 2100 and about 4000) and
below 2100 implies laminar flow. This results in different flow regimes for the two cases, as
the Reynolds number is different.

In the Tulsa thesis, the following calculations are made:

Velocity in power fluid tubing =4.152 sec / ft
Density of the power fluid =52.93
3
/ ft lbm
Diameter of the tubing =1.995 inches =0.16625 ft
Viscosity of the power fluid =5 cp

1 . 906
5
16625 . 0 152 . 4 93 . 52
124 124
Re
=

= =
ud
N
The constant 124 is a conversion factor between cP and
sec
2
ft
inch lbm

906.1 is the value used in the Tulsa thesis.

13
The above equation assumes that the diameter is in inches, not in feet. This is stated on page
61 of the Tulsa thesis. As seen in the above calculations, feet are used as the diameter unit.
This results in an incorrect Reynolds number.

Using inches as the tubing inside diameter unit, we get:

10873
5
995 . 1 152 . 4 93 . 52
124 124
Re
=

= =
ud
N

This is about the same number calculated in this project, therefore it seems like the
calculations using the standard relation
ud
= Re are correct.

A conversion of the input data, from field to SI units, are given in Table 1
The example-well from the Tulsa thesis is hereafter called Well A.

14
Review and Application of the Tulsa Liquid J et Pump Model December 2006 Review and Application of the Tulsa Liquid J et Pump Model December 2006
15

15
16

16
5.2 Evaluation of results

With the given nozzle/throat configuration the model gives an efficiency of 23% and a power
requirement for the surface pump on 88.5 horsepower (65 kW). Comparing the above results
to the Tulsa thesis example results, it is concluded that they are both correct according to the
Tulsa J et Pump model. The values from the thesis are for the efficiency 0.2263 23% and for
the power requirement 88 HP. For this example, it is obvious that the difference in the
Reynolds-number mentioned earlier has very little influence on the pump efficiency and
power demand.

However, the above calculations are not performed with the optimal nozzle/throat
configuration. This was found to be 6D (National, Figure 5) which gives efficiency of 23.7%
and power requirement on 82.4 HP.

17
6. Application of the Tulsa Model on a North Sea Well

As presented in the introduction, one of the tasks in this project was to apply the Tulsa model
to a North Sea oil well and suggest if it is suitable for use in the given well. Well 34/10-C-16,
located in the Gullfaks-field, was chosen as the basis for the North Sea Well. Well data
were found in the Gullfaks database on the IPT computer network. For the following case,
the reservoir pressure was adjusted such that the well became a candidate for artificial lift.
The depth of the well was slightly increased and the well was made vertical to simplify the
case. PROSPER, a well performance, design and optimisation program, was used to make the
inflow and outflow curves. The Characteristics of the well are found in Table 2. The well is
hereafter called Well B.
6.1 Case description

Well B is located in the southern part of the Gullfaks field in the North Sea (Figure 17). No
pressure maintenance solution has been added, the reservoir pressure is falling and the
production declining. At present time the well is producing 585 d Sm
3
liquid. With a water
cut of 35% , this gives an oil production on 380 d Sm
3
(Figure 18 and Table 2&3). To
increase oil production and save the well from depletion, J et Pumping has been selected as the
artificial lift method. The desired liquid flow rate is set to 1000 d Sm
3
, which gives an oil
flow rate on 650 d Sm
3
. Gas-oil ratio for the well is 95
3 3
Sm Sm .

For power fluid, processed oil with the same characteristics as the producing oil is selected
(for power fluid oil, GOR=0). The pump supplier is National (Figure 5). Surface pump
pressure together with pump efficiency for the given well are to be computed. In Chapter 6.2
the Tulsa J et Pump Model is used for these calculations.

Inflow and tubing performance curves for the well are found in Figure 18. Data for Well B are
found in Table 2 and data for the performance curves are found in Table 3.

18
6.2 Model calculations

The following calculations were performed using different nozzle/throat combinations. The
efficiency/power relations for the different combinations are found in Figure 19. Following is
the calculations for the optimal combination found, 14D:

19
20

20

The annular friction loss for the returning fluid was calculated using PROSPER (table 4), by
setting the return conduit to casing-tubing annulus and the return water cut to 20% (step
13), PROSPER calculates an annular friction pressure loss of 38 bar for the return fluid flow
equal to 1769 sm3/sm3 (step 11).

21
6.3 Evaluation of results

Choosing nozzle/throat combination D will, as shown in the calculations, give relatively high
production flow compared to the input HP and power fluid flow. However, the nozzle energy
is being transferred to a large amount of production compared to the power fluid rate, so
relatively low heads will be developed. For this case, even though the well is 2900m deep,
low heads will work, as the well is producing prior to the jet pumping with a reasonably high
bottomhole pressure. An efficiency of about 30% seems as a realistic value, but the power
requirement might be a little off as it is pretty sensitive to the selected surface operating
pressure value that has to be estimated prior to the calculations.

The values for power fluid rate, surface pump operating pressure, nozzle friction factor and
throat-diffuser friction factor from the calculations in 6.2 were inserted in the J et Pump
function in PROSPER. Based on this input data, the program computed the plot seen in figure
20. PROSPER illustrates the lift by plotting the pump discharge pressure vs. liquid flow rate.
The J et Pump Model in PROSPER gave a liquid flow rate of 957 d Sm
3
. Hence, the
difference between the Tulsa J et Pump Model and the model used by PROSPER is about
4.3%. Probably a large part of the difference can be explained with the fact that the
bottomhole pressure is adjusted from 271 to 261 bar when using the jet-pump feature in
PROSPER. The above calculations uses 271 bar as bottomhole pressure. Setting the
bottomhole pressure manually to 271 bar after applying the J et Pump in PROSPER, the
program gives production flow rate of about 1000 d Sm
3
with the given input data.

Probably is the J et Pump function in PROSPER based on the Tulsa model or a very similar
model. Anyhow, the program indicates that the Tulsa J et Pump model gives, in this case,
reasonable results.

22
7. Application of Other Models on a North Sea Well

For a basis of comparison, the following chapters include some other models applied to the
case presented in Chapter 6.1

7.1 JSG model calculations

This model is presented in the paper Modell for strlepumpe by J n Steinar Gumundsson
(01.06.06). The J SG model is a simple jet pump model, derived from the basic Bernoulli
equation for steady state incompressible flow:

.
2
1
2
Const u
P
= +
, and the mass flow relation

M L G
m m m = +

Neglecting the kinetic energy (very small), we have

L
L
G
G
M
M
P P P

+ = , for real systems, efficiency must be added:

L
L
G
G
M
M
P
P P

= , where the subscript G represents the production fluid.

G
is the production fluid (65% oil and 35% water): (0,35)1030 +(0,65)843 =908 kg/Sm3
L
is the density of the power fluid, in this case oil with density 843 kg/Sm3.

The Pump discharge pressure ( ) we have from point 16 of the calculations in Chapter 6.2.
This can also be used here, independent of the models. Pump discharge pressure is 318 bar.
M
P

For the power fluid pressure, it is referred to point 9 in Chapter 6.2, where this is calculated to
be 503 bar.

23

Calculating:

3
3
3
/ 880 843 ) 56 . 0 1 ( ) 908 ( 56 . 0 ) 1 (
56 . 0
843
908
) 58 . 0 1 ( 58 . 0
58 . 0
) 1 (
58 , 0
5 . 7 5 . 10
5 . 10
24 * 60 * 60
1
* 769 * 843
24 * 60 * 60
1
* 1000 * 908
Sm kg
x x
x
numerator
d
Sm
Sm
kg
m m
m
x
L G M
L
G
L G
G
= + = + =
=
+
=
+
=
=
+
=
+
=
+
=

efficiency becomes:

% 29 289 . 0
843
) 318 503 (
908
271
880
318
= =
=
L
L
G
G
M
M
P
P P

This seems like a reasonable result compared to the Tulsa model, but applying the model to
well A, it gives about 45% efficiency, which is very high. Probably is this explained with a
considerable difference between production and power fluid flow. This is further commented
in Chapter 8.

7.2 NTNU project calculations

In the NTNU project Ejektorpumpe (Moxnes, 2005)
9
, a J et Pump model is presented. The
model is based on a note by Harald Asheim from 2004
10
, containing some small
modifications. In this model, calculations are performed for each part of the pump, divided
into inflow, ejection, throat (mixing chamber) and outflow.

The Bernoulli based model assumes incompressible flow. Following is a presentation of how
to apply the model:

1) Fluid velocity in each part of the pump is calculated: tubing power fluid velocity,
ejection power fluid velocity, producing fluid velocity, production fluid suction
velocity, mixed fluid velocity in throat and discharge (outflow) velocity of mixed
fluid. Using A Q V =
24

2) Calculating power fluid ejection pressure:
) (
2
1
2 2
prod suction
prod prod e
V V P P =
3) Pressure at the throat-exit:
)] ( ) ( [
1
suction throat prod prod throat e power power
throat
e throat
V V Q V V Q
A
P P + =
4) Discharge (outflow) pressure is calculated:
) (
2
1
arg
2 2
e disch throat
throat throat d
V V P P + =
Where
throat
is assumed to be homogenous

5) Pressure at nozzle inflow:
) (
2
1
2 2
,
power ejection
prod e tubing power
V V P P + =
6) Efficiency of the pump is given by:
power
prod
E
E
=
Where
prod
prod
prod prod
e disch
prod d prod
Q V P V P E )
2
1
2
1
(
2
arg
2
+ =
and
power
e disch
power e disch
power
power power power
Q V P V P E )
2
1
2
1
( arg
2
arg
2
+ =

7) Power requirement of surface pump:
p surfacepum power
P Q P = , [W]

To calculate tubing power fluid flow and pressure, the equations from Chapter 6.2, step 7 are
used. Calculations are performed in Excel, using the input values from Table 2.

25

ompared to the efficiency value calculated in Chapter 6.2, the efficiency here is remarkably
he same calculations were performed on well A from Chapter 5.1, using input data from

C
high. This is further discussed in Chapter 8.

T
Table 1:

26

The efficiency for well A is also high compared to the values calculated with the Tulsa model.
This is further discussed in the next Chapter.

27
8. Discussion

ter 6 and 7, calculations using the different models gave deviant results.
he input data were similar for all three models: well data from table 2 and a preset
ssure
and the NTNU project model differ in the way pressure loss over the pump
calculated. The NTNU model uses velocity calculations and acceleration terms while the
quired surface pump pressure on 312 bar. For comparison, the Tulsa model calculated a
n other
exceeds
00 m/s. According to the Ejektorpumpe-project (Moxness, 2005)
9
velocities exceeding
). ll
clude gas, which the Tulsa model is. The
portance of the gas-oil relation in the Tulsa model can be shown by setting the GOR equal
s
As presented in Chap
T
reasonable pump surface pressure, used to calculate the power fluid pressure at the nozzle
inflow. This value is further used to compute the flow rate in the power fluid tubing.
Considerable changes in the assumed surface pump pressure have high influence on the
results. When comparing the models, it is important to use the same surface pump pre
assumption.

The Tulsa model
is
Tulsa thesis uses the nozzle and throat-diffuser friction factors to calculate pressure loss.

For well B, the NTNU project model calculated a discharge pressure on 332 bar and a
re
required surface pump pressure on 335 bar for a preset discharge pressure on 318 bar. I
words, the pressure loss over the Tulsa J et Pump is higher than over the pump in the other
model. Calculations performed on well A with both models show the same trend as mentioned
above, the Tulsa model computes lower efficiency and higher power requirement.

In the NTNU project calculations, the velocity of the mixed fluids at the throat exit
1
mach 0.3 (100 m/s) results in compressible flow, which violates the assumption for the
Bernoulli equation. The velocity decreases as the pressure increases throughout the throat
(Figure 3.1 This means that if the velocity is about 100 m/s at the throat-exit, the flow wi
be compressible in the entire throat-section.

The NTNU project model is not adjusted to in
im
to 0. This sets the nozzle-throat friction factor equal to 0.1. For well A, which has a GOR
value of nearly 180, it results in a calculated efficiency of 28.1% and a power requirement of
64 HP. If, in addition, the nozzle friction factor is set to 0, the efficiency for well A exceed
30%, which is about the same that was calculated using the NTNU project model.
28
The friction factors in the Tulsa model are based on data from experiments using water and
air as the two fluid phases. The experiments were conducted under typical field conditions,
luid conditions are calculated. The model computes efficiency
r a pump, given the production fluid, power fluid and discharge fluid pressure and density.

Tulsa model seems to give very good results. It
possible that the PROSPER J et Pump function is based on the Tulsa model presented here,
however it is not certain that these friction factor values are accurate when handling other
fluids. Further development of the model should probably include experiments with other
fluids and fluid properties.

In the J SG model, none of the f
fo
The model does not take the difference in power and production volume fluid flow into
consideration. It should, however, give quite good results for cases with incompressible fluids
and low power/production fluid flow ratio.

Comparing to the results from PROSPER, the
is
or the improved Tulsa model from 1998
11
, anyhow, the similarity in results shows that the
model is applicable in the field as it is presented in this project.

29
9. Conclusion
From the calculations conducted in this project, it is clear that there is a difference between
p models when pumping a two-phase fluid. The Tulsa model is
presented models are assuming incompressible
from PROSPER shows that the calculations done here are reasonable. Based on this, it
s like the model is applicable to a field situation as it is presented in this project. For the
e two phases. Experimenting with other fluids and using unequal power and production
er

the presented J et Pum
extended to include gas, while the two other
flow.

Although this project does not include comparison to other models for compressible flow, the
results
seem
North Sea well, presented in Chapter 6.1, the calculations performed with the Tulsa model
gave an efficiency of about 30% and a surface pump power requirement of 444 HP.

To improve the Tulsa model, experiments should be conducted, using different production
and power fluids. In the experiments described in the Tulsa thesis, water and air were used as
th
fluid could contribute to further development of the model. An improved version of the Tulsa
model has already been made, and is presented in the SPE J ournal in September 1998
11
.
Among the improvements are more precise values for both the nozzle and the throat-diffus
loss factors.

30

10. References
rmance model for hydraulic jet pumping of two phase fluids, (Tulsa,
2. J ahn, F., Cook, M., Graham, M.: Hydrocarbon exploration and production,
3. Overview of Artificial Lift Systems, (SPE Article, 1982)
Fluid
rld Oil,
6. : Design and Application of an Integral J et Pump/Safety valve in
7. , H.L.:Obtaining Low Bottomhole Pressure in Deep Wells With
8. .: Fundamentals of Oilwell J et Pumping,
9.
11. Improved Two-Phase Model for

1. J iao, B.: Perfo
August 1988)
(Nederland, 1998)
Brown, K. E.:
4. Cunningham, R. G.: Gas Compression with the Liquid J et Pump,(J ournal of
Engineering, 1974)
5. Petrie, H.L., Wilson P.M., and Smart, E.E.: J et Pumping Oil Wells, (Wo
November 1983)
Allan, Moore, Adair
a North Sea oilfield,( SPE article, 1989)
Christ, F.C, Petrie
Hydraulic J et Pumps, (SPE Production Engineering, August 1989)
Grupping, A.W. Coppes, J .L.R., Groot, J .G
(SPE Production Engineering, February 1988)
Moxness, V.W: Ejektorpumpe, (NTNU Project, 2005)
10. Asheim, Harald: Ejektorpumpe(Note),( NTNU, 2004)
Noronha, F.A.F., Franca, F.A., Alhanati, F.J .S.:
Hydraulic J et Pumps, (SPE article, September 1998)

31
11. Tables
able 1: Data for Well A, Tulsa thesis example (J iao, 1988)
1
T

Input Data Unit [SI] Value Unit [Field] Value
Pump Setting depth, Dp m 1828 ft 6000
Casing OD m 0.1397 in
Casing ID, d1 m 0.1242 in
5.5.
4.892
ubing OD, d2 m 0.0603 in 2.375
Tubing ID, d5 m 0.050673 in 1.995
Tubing coupling OD, d4 m 0.0778 in 3.063
Length of tubing m 1828 ft 6000
Bottomhole temperature, T C 62.7 F 145
Flowing bottomhole pressure, Pi Pa 6895000 psi 1000
Wellhead back pressure, Pwh Pa 689500 psi 100
Desired flowrate, Qi Sm^3/s 0.0011 bbl/D 600
Water Cut, Wc 0.25 0.25
Gas-oil ratio, GOR Sm^3/Sm^3 178.1 scf/STB 1000
Oil gravity kg/Sm^3 848 API 35
Water gradient, Gw Pa/m 10291 psi/ft 0.455
Oil viscosity Pas 0.005 cP 5
Ol gradient, Go Pa/m 8324 psi/ft 0.368
Power fluid gravity kg/Sm^3 848 API 35
Power gradient, Gp Pa/m 8324 psi/ft 0.368
T

Table 2: Well B data for the case presented in Chapter 6 (http://gullfaks.ipt.ntnu.no)

Input Data Unit [SI] Value
Pump Setting depth, Dp m 2900
Casing OD m 0.1778
Casing ID, d1 m 0.1607
Tubing OD, d2 m 0.1143
Tubing ID, d5 m 0.0995
Tubing coupling OD, d4 m 0.127
Length of tubing m 2900
Bottomhole temperature, T C 83
Flowing bottomhole pressure, Pi Pa 27100000
Wellhead back pressure, Pwh Pa 5588000
Desired flowrate, Qi Sm^3/s 0.0115
Water Cut, Wc 0.35
Gas-oil ratio, GOR Sm^3/Sm^3 95
Oil gravity kg/Sm^3 843
Water gradient, Gw Pa/m 10300
Oil viscosity Pas 0.00135
Ol gradient, Go Pa/m 7100
Power fluid gravity kg/Sm^3 843
Power gradient, Gp Pa/m 7100

32

Table 3: Data table for the performance curves in Figure 18 (PROSPER generated table,
using data from the gullfaks database: http://gullfaks.ipt.ntnu.no).

Table 4: Data table for the return annular liquid flow. This is calculated by PROSPER, setting
the return conduit to casing-tubing annulus and the return water cut to 20 (step 13, Chapter
6.2). Highlighted are the return liquid flow rate (step 11, Chapter 6.2) and the corresponding
friction pressure loss.

33
12. Figures

1
Figure 1: The J et Pump with letters and markings used in the Tulsa model (J iao, 1988)

Figure 2: J et pump operating principles (Allan, Moore, Adair, 1989)

6
34

igure 3: General J et Pump Nozzle/Throat combinations (Allan, Moore, Adair, 1989)
6
F

Figure 3.1: Pressure profile along J et Pump cross-section
(http://www.weatherford.com/weatherford/groups/public/documents/general/wft007479.pdf)

35

Figure 4:
Comparison of different artificial lift methods (J ahn, F., Cook, M., Graham, M., 1998)
2

36

Figure 5: J et Pump nozzle and throat sizes from 3 manufacturers; Kobe, National and
Guiberson ( Petrie, H.L., Wilson P.M., and Smart, E.E, 1983)
5

37

Figure 6: Pressure history of produced fluid as it enters and travels through the jet pump.
Cavitation occurs where the throat pressure is drawn below the produced fluids vapour
pressure (Christ, F.C, Petrie, H.L, 1989)
7

Ktd vs. AWR, [SI units]
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
1,2
1,4
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
AWR [SCM/SCM]
K
t
d
Rp=0,5
Rp=0,6
Rp=0,7

Figure 7: Ktd vs. AWR graph based on experiment-data from thesis by J iao
1

38
Ktd vs. AWR, [Field units]
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
1,2
1,4
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750
AWR [Scf/STB]
K
t
d
Rp=0,5
Rp=0,6
Rp=0,7
Figure 8: Ktd vs. AWR graph in field units, based on experiment-data from thesis by J iao
1

Friction factor at throat and diffuser vs. Ratio of discharge pressure to power
fluid pressure
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
1,2
1,4
1,6
1,8
2
0,35 0,4 0,45 0,5 0,55 0,6 0,65 0,7
Rp
K
t
d
AWR=18 Scm/Scm
AWR=36 Scm/Scm
AWR=54 Scm/Scm
AWR=0 Scm/Scm
AWR=180 Scm/Scm
R=0.233

Figure 9: Ktd vs. Rp graph based on experiment-data from thesis by J iao
1
39
Friction factor at throat and diffuser vs. ratio of nozzle area to throat area
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
1,2
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9
R
K
t
d
AWR=18 Scm/Scm
AWR=36 Scm/Scm
AWR=54 Scm/Scm
AWR=0 Scm/Scm
AWR=180 Scm/Scm
Rp=0.

Figure 10: Ktd vs. R graph based on experiment-data from thesis by J iao
1

Deminensionless pressure recovery ratio vs. dimensionless mass flow ratio
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5
M
N
R=0.2331
R=0.2994
R=0.3786
R=0.3817
AWR=17.8
Scm/Scm
Rp=0.6
Kn=0.04

Figure 11: N vs. M graph based on experiment-data from thesis by J iao
1

40

Efficiency vs. dimensionless mass flow ratio
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5
M
E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

[
%
]
R=0,2331
R=0,2994
R=0,3786
R=0,3817
AWR=17.8
Scm/Scm
Rp=0.6
Kn=0.04

Figure 12: Efficiency vs. M graph based on experiment-data from thesis by J iao

1

Dimensionless pressure recovery ratio vs. dimensionless mass flow ratio
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5
M
N
AWR=18 Scm/Scm
AWR=36 Scm/Scm
AWR=180 Scm/Scm
AWR=0 Scm/Scm
R=0.2331
Kn=0.04
Rp=0.7

1
41
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5
M
E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
,

[
%
]
AWR=18 Scm/Scm
AWR=36 Scm/Scm
AWR=1000 Scm/Scm
AWR=0
R=0.2331
Kn=0.04
Rp=0.7
igure 14: Efficiency vs. M graph based on experiment-data from thesis by J iao
1
F

Dimensionless pressure recovery ratio vs. Dimensionless mass flow ratio
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5
M
N
Rp=0,7
Rp=0,6
Rp=0,5
Rp=0,4
R=0.2331
Kn=0.04
AWR=18
Scm/Scm

1
42
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0,1 0,3 0,5 0,7 0,9 1,1 1,3 1,5 1,7 1,9 2,1
M
E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
,

[
%
]
Rp=0,7
Rp=0,6
Rp=0,5
Rp=0,4
R=0.2331
Kn=0.04
AWR=18 Scm/
Scm

Figure 16: Efficiency vs. M graph based on experiment-data from thesis by J iao
1

Figure 17: The Gullfaks field is a part of the Tampen-area in the North Sea. Well B is located
in Gullfaks sr, found on the picture to the right. Gullfaks is operated by Statoil ASA

(www.statoil.com)

43
44
Figure 18: Performance curves for Well B. The two pictures differ in the axis. The
nu.no)
uppermost picture plots pressure vs. liquid rate (water and oil). The lowermost plots
pressure vs. oil rate. (PROSPER generated plots, using data from the gullfaks database:
http://gullfaks.ipt.nt
Efficiency vs. power requirement
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Power, [HP]
E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
,

[
%
]
Nozzle 13
Nozzle 14
Nozzle 15
Nozzle 16
Nozzle 17
Nozzle 18
Nozzle 19
Nozzle 20
14D
14
14
13D
13
15C
15
16
A
16C 17
17
20
19
19
18
18C

Figure 19: Pump performance curves for well B, based on trials with different nozzle/throat
combos.

Figure 20: J et Pump performance curves. PDP =Pump Discharge Pressure.
(PROSPER generated)

45
13. Appendixes

Appendix A

DERIVATION OF THE JET PUMP MODEL IN SI-UNITS

The Derivation of the Pump Model performed in the Tulsa thesis is based on the field unit
system, and the fundamental physical constant is used. This constant expresses the
proportionality between force and momentum change. In the field unit
system has been given an experimental value; 32.1739
c
g
,
c
g
2
sec
lbf
lbm ft
(Reynolds & Perkins,
1970). In SI-units the gravitational constant is set to =1 by choice.

The following derivations of the energy-balance-momentum equations are based on the Tulsa
The following assumptions are made for the analysis:

1. Steady State flow
2. Uniform properties of a single-phase fluid
3. Incompressible fluid
4. Pressure constant over the entire section
5. Zero thickness of the nozzle wall at the exit
6. Complete mixing at the exit of the throat
7. No space between the nozzle exit and the throat entrance

c
g
thesis.

46
The continuity equation states:
.
0
const VA m
V
= =
=

Further, we define the following:

,
, /
p
i
p
i
n
i
t n
Q
Q
Q
Q
m
m
M
A A R
= =

,
t i n
A A A +

.(1)

(3)

Ap
we have:

....(2)

.
plying the extended Bernoulli equation:

loss gz
V P V
in
in
in
out
out
out
+ + = + +
2 2
2 2

e choose to neglect the gravitation terms in this derivation, as they represent a
significant pressure-drop. The equation simplifies to:
gz
P

W
in

n n n
V M R MRV V ) 1 ( + = +
n n n t
t
n
n
n n i
i
t
R
A m A A
V
V
R
MR
R A
MR m
M m Mm m
m
/
,
1 ) 1 (
,
=
=
= = =
=
i n
m m +
V
t n t i
R A A A A ) 1 ( ) (
n
n i n n i n t
m m A m m m m /
+ =
+
=
t n t t
A A A A
=
47
48
,
2
1
2
2
out in
K V
V P P
,
2
) 1 (
2 2
2
2 2
n n e p
n n n e P
V K P P
V K V P P

+ =
+ =
2
i i
.(4)
Applying the equation above to the power-section, we find:

.(5)

Where is the theoretical friction factor at nozzle (dimensionless).
take section:

.(6)

Substituting equation (2) into equation (6) we have for the intake section:

n
K

For the in

2
2
2 2
) 1 ( 2
) 1 (
n i e i
V
R
R M
K P P
+ =

.(7)

arge section:

.(8)
for the disch

Substituting equation (3) into equation (8) we have for the discharge section:

2 2 2
2
) 1 ( ) 1 (
n d t d
V M R K P P

+ = .(9)
,
2
) 1 (
2 2
2
2 2
i i e i
i i i e i
V K P P
V K V P P

+ =
+ =
2
2 2
2
) 1 (
2 2
t d t d
t d t t d
V K P P
V K V P

P
=
=

The momentum equation states:

Applying the above equation to the mixing section (throat), we get:

F mV PA = .(10)

2
2
)
t t t t t i i n n t e t
V A K V m V m V m A P P

+ = .(11)
earranging:
(

R

=
e t
P P
2
2
t t
t
t t
t
i i
t
n n
V K
A
V m
A
V m
A
V m
+

Now, using the continuity equation, the equation above becomes:

2
1
2
2 2 2 2
2
2 2 2

t t t
t
n
i
t
n
n
t t
t t t
A A A

t t i i n n
e t
V K V
A
A
V
A
A
V
V K
A V A V A V
P

+ =

Further, this gives:
P
=

2 2 2 2
2
) 1 (
t t t i n e t
V K V R V R V P P

+ = .(12)

Substituting equations (2) and (3) into equation (12), we obtain:

2 2 2 2 2 2
2
2
2
) 1 (
) 1 (
n n e t
V
R
R RV P P
+ =
2 2
) 1 (
2
) 1 (
n t n
V M R K V M R
R
+ +

M
49
Therefore,

) 1 ) 2 (
(
M K
t

+ +
+ =
2 2
2 2
2
(
) 1
2
2
2
R
R
R M
R V P P
n e t
.(13)
ince

e get:

S

) ( ) (
e i e p i p
P P P P P P =
W

+ + =
2
2 2
2
2
) 1 (
) 1 ( 1
2 R
R M
K K V P P
n n i p
.(14)

or a well rounded entry , hence 0
2
K F

2
2 2
2 ) 1 (
1
2
R
R M
V
P P
K
n
i p
n

We define:

2
2 2
R M
K K
n n
+
) 1 ( R

Where the effective nozzle loss parameter, , is defined as
n
K

1
2
2

=
i p
P P
n
n
V
K

50
Using the identities:
.(15)

nd
.(16)

ombining equations (7),(9),(13) and (15), we get

) ( ) ( ) (
e i e t t p i p
P P P P P P P P +
a

) ( ) (
i d i p d p
P P P P P P
C

,
) 1 (
) 1 ( ) 1 ( ) 2 (
1
2
2 ) 1 ( 1 (
2
2 2
2 2
+
=
M
R M
)
2 2 1
) 1 ( ) 1 ( ) 2 (
) 1 (
2
2
2 2
) 1 ( ) 1 (
2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2
2 2
2 2
2 2 2 2
+ + +

+ +
+ +
+
+ + =
R
R M
K M R K
R
R M
R R K
V V
R
K M R K
R
R M
R
V V M R K P P
i t
d
n n
i t
n n d i d

and

+
+ + +
+
=
2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2
) 1 (
) 1 (
) 1 ( ) 1 (
1
2
2
2
R
R M
K
M R K K
R
R M
R
V P P
i
d t
n i d
.(17)
fig nd in practice negligible, we set
.

bining equation (14),(16), and (17) we obtain:

Since the coefficient
i
K is a theoretical con uration factor a
K 0 =
i

Com
51

[ ] ) ( 1
2
) (
) 1 (
) 1 ( 1
2
2
2 i d
P P
.(18)
2 2
2
i d n n
i n n d p
P P K V
R
R M
K K V P P
+
=
+ + =
mensionless recovery ratio, N, is defined as:

A di
d p
P P
N

i d
P P
.(19)
Substituting equations (17),(18) into (19), we obtain:

Numerator K
R
R M
K M R K K
R
R M
R
N
n
i d t
+

+ + + +
+
=
1
) 1 (
) 1 ( ) 1 ( ) 1 (
1
2
2
2
2 2
2 2
2 2
.(20)

Merging coefficients into a single and setting
d t
K K +
td
K 0 =
i
K , we rearrange
e numerator. Equation (20) becomes: th

[ ]
Numerator K
M R K R R M R R
N
n
td
+
+ + +
=
1
) 1 ( ) 1 ( ) 1 /( ) )( 2 1 ( 2
2 2 2 2 2
.(21)

Calculating the jet pump efficiency, we express:

Output power = ) (
i
i
P P
m

d

nd a

) (
d p
n
P P
m
Input Power =

Hence, we express the efficiency, , as
52

N M
P P m
P P m
d p n
i d i
=
=
) (
) (
.(22)

Now, the single-phase model defined by equation (21) and (22) must be modified to include
as. J iaos approach to do so, is to first define the volumetric flow rate for the gas-liquid
n (21), and regress on the pump energy loss
oefficients, and to predict a two-phase pressure recovery factor, N. The regression is
on pump geo perties of the
mixture.
In the Tulsa derivation, power fluid flow rate (bbl/D) is given by:

g
mixture, then substitute this flow rate into equatio

td
K
n
K c
metric factors and operating conditions, not fluid physical pro

p i p n p
G P P A Q ) ( 832 =

This is an empirical eq so the units us in the equatio uation, ed n do not add-up to bbl/D.
onverting this equation to take SI-units:

Steps

C

ft inch
ft
Psi
Psi
inch
2
1. Units in field unit system:
2
=
its in SI: m m
m
Pa
Pa
m
2 2
= Un

. Unit relations: 2
s m D bbl
m foot
m inch
/ 10 * 84013 . 1 / 1
3048 . 0 1
00064516 . 0 1
3 6
2 2
=
=
=

3. Calculating the relation between the unit systems, using
53
the SI-values above (2):

00516629 . 0 10 * 84013 . 1 * 00035618 . 0
00035618 . 0 ) 552086 . 0 )( 00064516 . 0 (
6
= =
= =
x x
m A
n

4. Now, we multiply the original equation by x, and change the units to
s
m
3

=
s
m
G
P P
A Q
p
i p
n p
3
,
) (
) 00516629 . 0 )( 832 (

ence,
he equation in SI-units:

H

T
p
i p
n p
G
P P
A Q

) (
3 . 4

= .(23)
.(24)

becomes

The dimensionless are ratio is:

t n
A A R /
The dimensionless mass flow ratio
), (
)
G
Q

(
p
i
p
g i
G Q
Q
M
+
= .(25)
This can be expressed in terms of gas-oil ratio and water cut:

[ ] ( ) [ ] ) /( ) 1 ( ) / ( 8 . 2 1
2 . 1
p p i C C i i
xG Q G W W P GOR Q M + + =

54
Conver ing the relations mentioned earlier and in addition:

ting to SI-units (input), us
STB
Scf
Sm
Sm
6146 . 5 1
3
3
= =GOR

This leads to:

1 Psi =6894.757 Pa
[ ] ( )
[ ] =
+ + =
)) /( )(G 10 * 84013 . 1 (
) 1 ( ) / ( )) 757 . 6894 )( 6146 . 5 (( 8 . 2 1 * ) 10 * 54 . 5 (
6
2 . 1 2 . 1 5
p p i
C C i i
xG Q
W W P GOR Q M

[ ] ( )
[ /( )( 10 * 84013 . 1 (
6
i
x Q G
] ))
) 1 ( ) / )( 10 * 9 . 8 ( 1 * ) 10 * 54 . 5 (
2 . 1 5 5
p p i
C C i
G
W W P GOR Q + + =
.(26)
A cavitation correction fo ga d. Assuming choked flow into the throat annulus
around the power fluid jet, additional area required to pass the gas is:
M

r s is require

( )
i c i g
P GOR W Q A 24650 / ) 1 ( =
Converting o I-unit:

t S
( )( ) ( ) = =
i c i g
W Q A 6146 . 5 ) 1 )( 10 * 434 . 5 ( ) 0254 . 0 ( P GOR 24650 / 757 . 6894
5 2

) )( 550 )( 1 (
i
c i
P
GOR
W Q .(27)

he efficiency becomes: T

= =
p p
i i
d p
i d
G Q
G Q
P P
P P
M N
) (
) (
.(28)

55
The minimum area to avoid cavitation in square inches is:

( ) 24650 /( GOR A

+ = ) 1
691
1
i c
i
i
i sm
P W
P
G
Q

In square meters:

( )( ) ( ) ) 0254 . 0 ( 24650 / 757 . 6894 6146 . 5 ) 1 ( 3048 . 0
691
1
)
10 * 84013 . 1
1
(
2
6

+ =
i c
i
i
i sm
P GOR W
P
G
Q A
=

+ = ) )( 550 )( 1 ( 28 . 0
i
c
i
i
i sm
P
GOR
W
P
G
Q A .(29)

In practice, it is necessary to use an equation of state like the idea as law orking
curves for pump efficiency. From the ideal gas law, air density is:
l g to predict w

,
RT
PM
air
= .(30)

Standard conditions(SI):
olecular weight
R=8.314472

P =101325 Pa, atmospheric pressure
M=28,97 g/mol, m
) (
) (
3
mol K
Pa m

T=288 K

he mass flow rate of air through pump at standard conditions in Field units is given as: T

= =
D
lbm
ft
lbm
D
ft
Q Q
air air ake iam 3
3
, int

hen is given in
ia
Q
D
Mscf
, we use:
D
Mscf
x 1000 =
D
scf
w

56
hence,
, where (flow rate of air through pump) is in
ia
Q
D
Mscf

=
D
lbm
Q Q
ia iam
, 0763 . 0 1000

or standard conditions in SI, we have: F

3 3
225 . 1 1225
288 * 314472 . 8
97 . 28 * 101325
m
kg
m
g
RT
PM
air
= = = =

s

= =
kg
Q Q Q
ia air ia iam
, 225 . 1 1000 1000 .(31)

Where
ia
Q is in
s
.

Mm
3
The mass flo

w can be expressed as:
powerfluid water
air ake air i water
Q
M
Q Q
) ( ) (
, int
powerfluid water
air ake air
powerfluid water
i water
Q
Q
Q
Q

+

, int
=
+
=

where
=
3
999
m
kg
water
and
=
air
3
225 . 1
m
kg

term in the above equation simplifies to The second

powerfluid
ia
powerfluid
ia
Q
kg
Q
Q
227 . 1
) 225 . 1 1000 (

powerfluid water
air ake air
Q
s
kg
Q
s
Q
) 999 (
)
, int
=

The first term simplifies to
(

) (
water
i water
powerfluid
Q
Q
= ) (
Q

powerfluid
i
Q

57

Hence, the equation for mass flow becoms:

e
powerfluid
Q
air ake ake
Q Q
M
227 . 1
, int int
+
= .(32)
The consumed input hydraulic power becomes:

.(33)

hydraulic power is expressed:

) (
iaw i i d iaw i w
Q Q P P Q Q P Q

, ) ( ) (
p d p p d p p C
Q P P Q P Q P E = =
while the transferred useful
(
i ia i d t
Q P E ) )( ( ) + = .(34)
ubstituting equation (32) into equation (34):
.(35)

Hence, the pump efficiency is:
+ =

S

) 227 . 1 )( (
ia i i d t
Q Q P P E + =

+
=
+
=
+
=
= =
powe co
power transferre
p
ia i
ia i i d iaw i i d t
Q
Q Q
Q Q P P Q Q P P E
r input nsumed
useful d
227 . 1
) 227 . 1 )( ( ) )( (
.(36)

This efficiency restates the efficiency computed by equation (28), using:
p d p p d p C
Q P P Q P P E ) ( ) (
N

p
ia i
Q
Q Q
M
227 . 1 +
= .(37)

58

From equation (36) we see that N and M gives us the efficiency:

M N Efficiency = =

iaos J et Pump Model uses a functional form for
.(38)
J ) (M f N = that is based on work by
on mass energy conservation principles.
implifying the typing of this function, we define two component elements:

Cunningham(3), who developed this function
S
[ ]
2 2 2
) 1 /( ) )( 2 1 ( 2 R R M R R B + = .(39)
+ = .(40)

here R is the ratio of the nozzle to throat area).
sing equation (39) and (40), equation (21) becomes:

2 2
) 1 ( M R C
(w

U
C K B K
td n
) 1 ( ) 1 ( + + +
C K B
td
) 1 ( +
= .(41)
Where is the effective friction factor at nozzle, and is the friction factor at throat and
diffuser.

is in this jet pump model set to 0.04. This value was selected by J iao from optimization
based on high pressure data.
td

+ = .(42)

here
N

n
K
td
K
n
K

td
K is given by:

33 . 0 63 , 0 33 . 2 3
) ( ) )( 10 * 67 . 3 ( 1 . 0 R AWR R K
p
W
p
d
p
P
P
R =

59

Equation 42 is developed by J iao, using regression analysis. The analysis was done by a
omputer program, performing a multiple linear least squares regression on the logarithms of
the variables and t side of the
quation simplifies to the constant 0.1, as AWR=0.
c
AWR (Air-Water-Ratio). For single-phase flow, the righ
p
R R,
e

Converting the equation to SI-units:

33 . 0 63 . 0
3
3048 . 0
63 . 0 33 . 2 3
)
15898 . 0
( ) ( ) )( 10 * 67 . 3 ( 1 . 0 R AWR R
p td

+ =
Rearranging:

+ = .(43)

K
33 . 0 63 . 0 33 . 2 3
) ( ) )( 10 * 88 . 10 ( 1 . 0 R AWR R K
p td

60

Nomenclature

i
A Area of flow path at pump suction, sq. m

Area of flow path at nozzle exit, sq. m

th at throat, sq. m
Minimum flow area throat annulus to avoid cavitation, sq. m

Throat annulus area, sq. m

Air water ratio, Sm^3/Sm^3
n
A

t
A Area of flow pa

sm
A
s
A
AWR

B Parameter used in computing N, dimensionless

Parameter used in computing N, dimensionless
Depth to the pump, m
Transferred useful hydraulic power, Watt
Consumed input hydraulic power, Watt
Gradient of pump intake fluid, Pa/m
Gradient of oil, Pa/m
Gradient of pump power fluid, Pa/m
Gradient of water, Pa/m
Friction factor at throat, dimensionless

Friction factor at diffuser, dimensionless
Friction factor at throat and diffuser, dimensionless
' Friction factor at nozzle (theoretical), dimensionless
Friction factor at nozzle (effective), dimensionless
C

p
D

t
E

E
c

G
i

G
o

G
p

G
w

K
t
K

d
K

td
K

n
K

n
61
M

Dimensionless mass flow ratio
Mass flow rate through pump suction, kg/s
actor
te, Sm^3/s
Q d conditions, Mm^3/s
id through pump, Sm^3/s
low rate, Sm^3/s
R roat area
pressure,
m
i

n
m Mass flow rate through nozzle exit, kg/s

t
m Mass flow rate through throat, kg/s

N Dimensionless pressure recovery f

d
P Pump discharge pressure, Pa

P Pressure at throat entrance, Pa
e

i
P Pump intake pressure, Pa

s
Static pressure, Pa P

p
Power fluid pressure at nozzle entrance, Pa P

d
Q Pump discharge flow ra

g
Q In situ gas flow rate, Sm^3/s

i
Q Flow rate at pump intake, Sm^3/s

iam
Mass intake flow rate of air at standar

Flow rate of power flu
p
Q

r
Q Flow rate of returning fluid, Sm^3/s

sc
Q Maximum noncavitating f

Dimensionless ratio of nozzle area to th

d
P /
p
P
p
R Ratio of discharge pressure to power fluid

i
V Fluid velocity through pump intake, m/s

n
V Fluid velocity through nozzle, m/s

t
V Fluid velocity through throat, m/s

62
Appendix B

Sizing of Hydraulic Jet Pumps

he following text is a step by step procedure for sizing downhole liquid J et Pumps. Most of
th equ tions u ed are echanical and momentum equations in
p endx A, erivat Model.

1. Select the type of hydraulic jet pump installation:
nnulus will be the return conduit.
2. Compute the pump intake fluid gradient ( ,

Step by step procedure

T
e a s derived from basic fluid m
A p i D ion of the J et Pump

If a casing type open system is selected, the a

i
G )

o C C w i
G W W G G ) 1 ( ) ( + = ,

Pa

Where is the water cut, and and are the water and oil gradients in Pa/m.

. omp e
the minimum throat annulus area to avoid cavitation. Using the equation:
m
C
W
w
G
o
G
3 C ut ,
sm
A
+ ) )( 550 )( 1 (
i
c
i
i
i
P
W
P
A ,
= 28 . 0
sm
GOR G
Q [ ]
2
m
W Q e pump-inlet flow rate,
i
P is the pump-inl here is th et pressure, and the fluid
gradient at the inlet in Pa/m. GOR is the gas-oil ration in Sm3/Sm3.

i i
G

63
n t
A A 4. Using the manufacturers part list, select a value of
that exceeds , to avoid cavitation:
) >
Where s the area of flow path at nozzle
exit. Both values are in squa

Manufacturer tables are found as figure 5.

6. Select a reasonable value for a surface operating pressure,
The choice depends upon the available pressure of the surface pump, the jet pump
ance.
7. Estimate Nozzle pressure and flow rate, and

) ( ) (
sm
A
(
n t
A A
sm
A
t
A i of flow path at throat and
n
A is the area
re meters.
5. Compute the dimensionless ratio of nozzle to throat area, R
t n
A A R /

s
P
setting depth, and other properties of the well, the fluid and the inflow perform

p
P
p
Q
using the following equations:
, [ ] a P
estimated fp p p s p
P D G P P + =

p
i p
n p
G
P P
A Q
) (
3 . 4

= , [ ] s Sm /
3

Where is the friction loss in the power tubing given in Pa.
depends on oil viscosity, water cut, tubing length, production etc.

fp
P
fp
P
When estimating this value, it is usually possible to assume that
fp
P is approximately
1% of
p
P
64
8. Compute the frictional loss in power tubing,
fp
P
Velocity of fluid through tubing:

[ ] sec / , 27 . 1
)
2
(
2
5
5
m
Q
v
Q
v
p
= =

2 d
d
p

eters.

omputing the Reynolds number:

Where
5
d is the tubing inside diameter in m
C
Re
5
vd
, =
where,

2100 <
R
N , laminar flow
2100 >
R
N , turbulent flow
For laminar flow we have:
2
2
Re
64
u
d
L f
P
f
fp
=
=
, [ ] Pa

For Turbulent flow we have:

2
u
f
P =
2 d
L
fp

where f is calculated from Haalands equation:
=
n n
d
k
n f
11 . 1
75 . 3 Re
9 . 6
log
8 . 1 1

alternatively the moody diagram can be used.
65

9. ompute the nozzle pressure,
Using the same equation as in point 7, swapping the estimated pressure loss
with the calculated pressure loss:

, ) (
C
p
P
[ ] Pa P D G P P
fp p p s p
+

is the fluid gradient in Pa/m is the pump setting deep in meters, and
ictional loss in Pa for the power fluid.

10. Compute the volumetric flow rate of the power fluid,
Using equa ppendix A:

=
where G
p
,
p
D
fp
P is the fr

p
Q
tion (23) from A
p
n p
G
i p
P P
A Q
) (
3 . 4

= , [ ] s Sm /
3

11. Compute the flow rate of the returning fluid,
Using the relation:

+ = , [Sm^3/Sm^3]

he returning fluid flow equals the power fluid flow +the intake fluid flow

12. Calculate the gradient of the return fluid,
nits in Pa/m:
r
Q
Q
p i r
Q Q
T
r
G
U

r
p p i i
r
Q
Q G Q G
G
) ( ) ( +
=

66

13. Calculate the return water cut,

r
i
C cd
Q
W W ) ( =
Q

14. Compute the gas-liquid ratio,

Gas production / Total return-liquid prod. =GLR in return line

15. ning fluid,
using the appropriate single phase or two-phase model, for
r C i
Q GOR W Q GLR / ) 1 ( =

Compute the frictional loss in the retur
fr
P ,
0 GLR and GLR >0
respectively. For the two- ecessary to select an appropriate two-phase
correlation, such as Hagedorn & Brown, Aziz, Govier and Fogarasi, Beggs and Brills,
r alternatively one might use gas-lift charts.
we do as follows:
The single ph d into two cases: laminar and turbulent flow. To
distinguish between the two cases we use the Reynolds equation:
phase case, it is n
o

For the single-phase

ase flow is divide

h
R
vd
N =

where is the hydraulic diameter equal to
h
d
2 1
d d

, laminar flow
, turbulent flow

2100 <
R
N
2100 >
R
N
67

For laminar flow with 0 GLR , the total friction loss through the casing-tubing
owing equations:
Fluid velocity through casing-tubing annulus:

r
/ , ) ( * 27 . 1
1 2
2
2
1

=

where is the casing inner diameter and is the outer diameter of the tubing.
The total friction loss through the casing-annulus for the laminar flow case:

annulus is calculated using the foll

[ ] s m d d Q v
1
d
2
d
Re
64
=

f

2
u
L f
P =
2 d
For turbulent flow at 0 GLR , we use the following equation:

fr

2
2
u
d
L f
P
fr
=

where f is calculated from Haalands equation:

=
n n
d
k
n f
11 . 1
75 . 3 Re
9 . 6
log
8 . 1 1

lternatively the moody diagram can be used.

a

68
16. Calculating a reasonable pump discharge pressure,
This pressure equals the sum of the return fluid pressure gradient, the pressure friction
factor and the flowing wellhead pressure.

18. Compute , the dimensionless loss parameter for the throat and diffuser
using equation (43) from Appendix A:

10 ( 1 . 0 R AWR R K
p td

+ =

l
ulated in point nr. 5, and is given from the relation:

d
P
using the equation:

wh fr p r d
P P D G P + + = ) (

17. Set the dimensionless nozzle loss coefficient,
n
K equal to 0.04
Based on the empirical value from the Tulsa thesis

td
K
33 . 0 63 . 0 33 . 2 3
) ( ) )( 10 * 88 .
AWR equals GLR, which is caculated in point 14.
R is calc
p
R

p
d
p
P
P
R = , the ratio of the discharge pressure to the power fluid pressure
19. Compute M, the dimensionless mass flow rate,
Explained and calculated in Appendix A (equation 37):

p
ia i
Q
M
Q Q 227 . 1 +

where is the volumetric production fluid flow rate in Sm^3/s, is the volumetric
gas flow rate at standard temperature and pressure in
=
i
Q
ia
Q
s
Mm
3
, and is the power fluid
flow rate in Sm^3/s.
p
Q
69

20. imensionless parameters B and C, used to simplify the model
quation 39 and 40 from Appendix A:

Compute the two d
E
[ ]
2 2 2
) 1 /( ) )( 2 1 ( 2 R R M R R B + =
21. ow, calculate the dimensionless pressure recovery, N

and

2 2
) 1 ( M R C + =

N
Equation 41 from Appendix A:

C K B K
C K B
N
td n
td
) 1 ( ) 1 (
) 1 (
+ + +
+
=

22. ecompute the nozzle pressure, from R
p
P
Rearranging equation 19 from Appendix A:

( )
d
i d
p
P
N
P P
P +
=

23. ecompute the pump intake pressure,
i
P R
Rearranging equation 22:

) (
d p d i
P P N P P =

24. Recompute surface pump operating pressure,

s
P
Rearranging equation from point 9:
fp p p p s
P D G P P + =

70

25. Calculate the non cavitation flow rate,
sc
Q , in Sm3/s
( )
sm
n t
i sc
A
A A
Q =

26. ompute pump efficiency,
Q
C , from
ion (38) in Appendix A: equat

M N Efficiency = =

27. Determine the power requirement of the surface pump

ower =
Assuming that the typical efficiency of triplex pumps is 90%, we have:
Power =
P
s p
P Q
s p
s p
P Q
P Q
=
1 . 1
9 . 0
, [W]

1 HP =740W

In horsepower:
672 740
1 . 1
s p s p
P Q P Q
=

HP =

28. different set of throats and nozzles.
ompare results of successive iterations to obtain the optimum combination:
the highest efficiency d lowest horsepower.

Repeat steps 3 to 27 for a
C
an
71

Pedersen 2006

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Pedersen 2006

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

REVIEW AND APPLICATION OF THE

TULSA LIQUID JET PUMP MODEL

, and the mass flow relation

mensionless recovery ratio, N, is defined as:

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen