SPE 165077

Benefits Of PCP Charge Pumps Applied To Sand Producing Reservoirs

Mariano Montiveros, Pluspetrol SA, Lucas Echavarria, Pluspetrol SA, Mara Briozzo, Weatherford Internacional de
Argentina SA

Copyright 2013, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Artificial Lift Conference-Americas held in Cartagena, Colombia, 21-22 May 2013.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Heavy sandy fluids production is one of the biggest challenges for an artificial lift system. Progressing cavity pumping (PCP)
has always been the preferred method, but as sand cuts get higher a PCP by itself is not enough: this is when charge pumps
come into the picture.
This system consists of a main pump, which has high lift and low volumetric capacity; a charge pump which has low lift and
three times the capacity of the main pump and a perforated nipple between them. This arrangement provides higher suction
velocities reducing the deposition of solids in the rathole and the recirculation between both pumps helps keeping the
perforations clean.
This study is based on the first experience in Argentina using charge pumps. The field is Cerro Huanul Sur and is located in
the Neuquen Basin. This system was installed in seven wells and this study covers the benefits and limitations of each case.
The design of the bottomhole assembly was tailored to the specific needs of each well. This included the analysis of fluid
properties, well configuration and production history. The installations were carefully supervised and the performance tracked
using data logging and surveillance.
The completion of this type of wells is costly and time consuming since the sand cut has to be reduced to acceptable values.
Once in production, the typical problems are blocked suction, formation of sand bridges in the annular space between casing
and tubing, bridges in the tubing itself and sanded pump. In the conclusion this study will show how these issues were all
overcome; reducing completion time, the interventions of the well with a flush-by unit or a pulling rig and downtime, and
increasing pump run life.
Introduction
The Corcobo Norte field and its neighbours, Jagel Casa de Piedra, Cerro Huanul Sur, Puesto Pinto, El Renegado and
Gobernador Ayala Este belong to CNQ-7/A, CNQ-7 and Gobernador Ayala III areas, which are located north to the Ro
Colorado, in the argenitinian provinces of Mendoza and La Pampa (Cevallos et al. 2011).
In 2004 Petro Andina Resources Ltd. began operation in these areas, acquiring 50% of the exploratory blocks in the northeast
margin of the Neuquen Basin. Two societary groups were formed, one with Repsol-YPF in the CNQ-7/A area and another
with Repsol-YPF and Petrobras in the CNQ-7 area. In 2007 another society was formed with Enarsa and Raiser to operate
Gobernador Ayala III. In 2009 Petro Andina Resources Ltd. sold its assets to Pluspetrol S.A., the current operator.
Exploration of these areas started in 1964, being Jagel Casa de Piedra (JCP) x-3, drilled in 1984 by YPF, the first well to
show presence of heavy underpressurized oils in sand producing unconsolidated reservoirs. This region lack exploratory
interest, due to its poor production and its small scale, defined by three advance wells (JCP.a-4 and a-5 nonproductive and a-6
which produced both oil and water).
Based in the findings of JCP.x-3 Petro Andina Resources Ltd. initiated in 2004 an intense exploration campaign, that took
advantage of the objectives shallow depth. This was the first profitable exploration campaign. Stratigraphic traps with over
550 million BO OOIS (original oil in situ) were found during this period.
The main reservoirs in this area are non consolidated sands from Centenario Formation, with over 60% of the reserves in the
Lower Member while the rest are in the Upper Member. The best reservoirs from both the Lower and Upper Member are
coastal plateu fluvial channel deposits, with an average reservoir depth of 600m (1970ft). The average porosity is 30% while
the permeability ranges from 0.5 to 4 Darcy, being the average 1 Darcy. The average height is 8m (26 ft) but intervals as high

SPE 165077

as 18m (59ft) have also been found. Most of the oil has an API gravity of 18 and 160-270 cP in situ viscosity, though extra
heavy oils have also been found.
From the beginning the strategy used was created upon the study of the exploration and development of similar heavy oil
Canadian fields. It was also decided to try every technology that proved successful in other fields in a time frame of three
years.
Two technics were tested simultaneously: cold heavy oil production with sand (CHOPS) and pressure control with water
injection. Other techonologies such as continuum vapor injection, cyclic vapor injection and horizontal drilling were tested in
parallel but discarded due to its poor results for the field devolpment phase.
As of October 2012 the total net production of these areas was 4527 m3/d (28365 BOPD) with 470 active producing wells.
Water injection reached 18600 m3/d (116541 BFPD) with 269 injection wells. Additionaly, there are eight gas producing
wells that supply energy to the whole area.
As mentioned earlier, these fields are located north to the Rio Colorado in the provinces of Mendoza and La Pampa. Fig. 1.a
and 1.b ilustrate this:

Figure 1.a

Figure 1.b

Development
As the field was developed new border zones were perforated and two meters height intervals were found. These new intervals
are heterogenous and even less consolidated than those from the central zones. Wells with larger useful intervals were also
found, but they required more perforations. The arise of these new challenges made it necessary to look for new production
alternatives based on the completion and production techniques used for these types of reservoirs (Montiveros et al. 2012).
This is how Charge Progressing Cavity Pumps (ChPCP) came into the picture.
PCP Basic Principles
PCP systems are comprised basically by the surface equipment, the progressing cavity pump itself, the sucker rod string and
the production tubing, plus other bottom and surface minor accessories. Usually the stator is connected to the end of the tubing
string while the rotor is connected to the sucker rod string. The energy required for pumping (torque and rotation) is
transmitted from the surface equipment through the rod string to the pump.
The PCP is a positive displacement pump that has two parts: the stator and the rotor. The rotor is the only moving part of the
pump and is made of chrome coated high resistance steel and has n lobes. The stator is the static component, made from a
steel tube that has been injected high density polymer (elastomer) shaped in double helix (n+1 lobes). The most common
geometry is 1:2, that is, one lobe rotor and two lobes stator.
By definition, in 1:2 geometries three closed cavities make one stage. The lift capacity (rated pressure) of the pump is a direct
function of the number of stages. Another concept associated to pump performance is the interference, which is the tightness
between rotor and stator and depends on the elastomer swelling and the rotor diameter.
The cavities are independant spiral lenses created by the voids between the rotor and the stator, separated by the seal line.
Differential pressure across the pump distorts the seal line, resulting in fluid slippage from one cavity to the previous one. The
slippage is a function of the number of stages and the interference, and causes a loss of volumetric capacity (pump efficiency).

SPE 165077

Problems Associated to Sand Handling

The main issues associated to sand handling, besides its effects on the elastomer and the erosive/abrasive action in the metallic
components (tubing and sucker rods), are:

Restricted or blocked pump suction due to sand bridges and plugs in the tubing/casing annulus;

Sand settling in the rathole that could lead to perforations blockage. This could restrict flow from the reservoir and
complicate the pulling of the bottom hole assembly. This is why the rathole of these type of wells is 50 to 70m depth
(164 to 230ft);

Sand slugs cause torque peaks that can get the pump sanded;

Sand bridges or plugs inside the tubing (tubing/sucker rods annulus) that restrict pump discharge and could even
block it, leading to pump failure due to overpressure;

Sand settling in the pump discharge in the event of a shut down;

Surface lines blockage due to sand settling.
Though PCPs are the best option in terms of artificial lift methods for handling sand, the quest was finding a configuration that
was better at dealing with all the issues mentioned above.
Charge PCPs
This system could be simply described as two PCPs separated by a slotted nipple. The bottom pump is the charge pump itself
and has high displacement and low lift. The upper or main pump has low displacement and high lift. The charge pump
recirculates fluid since its displacement is three to four times that of the main pump.
The slotted nipple has to be at least 9 feet long, to avoid excessive stress on the rotors and pony rods. The minor diameter of
the charge pump is smaller than that of the main pump while the pitch of the charge pump is always larger than that of the
main pump. The rotor of the charge pump has to pass through the stator of the main pump, which makes this dimensional
compatibility mandatory.
When handling sand the first objective is that it enters the pump, in order to produce it and avoid settling in the rathole. The
charge pump has a paddle rotor which stirs the fluid in the pump suction helping the sand enter the pump. This type of rotor is
longer than traditional ones and has its bottom part machined in such a way that it ressembles a shovel. This extended part
rotates inside a slotted tagbar stirring the fluid and keeping the sand suspended.
It was mentioned earlier that the charge pump has three times the capacity of the main pump. This means that there is extra
fluid that needs to escape, and that is what the slotted nipple between the pumps is for. This recirculation of fluid increases the
velocity in the casing-tubing annulus and in the casing itself, causing better agitation, reducing sand settling and also reducing
sand total percentage in case of a sand slug.
To avoid sand settling the pump suction velocity has to be higher than the annulus velocity. Once the sand particles go through
the charge pump the goal is to avoid settling in the pump discharge, for which tubing velocity has to be higher than sand
settling velocity.
The next figure illustrates the charge pump system and how the fluid flows.

Figure 2 ChPCP Configuration and Fluid Flow

SPE 165077

Sand Settling Velocity Analysis

Sand settling velocity is calculated using the following equations:

=

=


=

.






.

.





.. (1)




 < 2 ... (2)




 < 500 .. (3)

= 0.44 


 > 500 . (4)

 =

(5)

Where:
Vs= Settling velocity (m/s)
Dp= Particle diameter (mm)


= Fluid density (kg/m3)


= Sand density (kg/m3)
CD= Resistance coefficient
NRe= Reynolds number


= Fluid viscosity (cp)

Several wells were sampled in order to quantify the relative percentages of the different grain sizes. The results are presented
in Table 1. Dispite being 0.4mm the average size, 1.7mm was used for the calculations since this represented the most critical
operating condition.
ASTM Mesh N
40
60
80
100
200
325

Size in Microns
wt%
2380
0.1
1680
0.3
1000
1.6
810
11.08
420
82.83
297
3.99
Table 1 Grain Size Analysis

Method
ASTM D-422
ASTM D-422
ASTM D-422
ASTM D-422
ASTM D-422
ASTM D-422

The following tables show the input data for CoHS-1018, the first well to have a charge pump installed.
Input Data

Model

Casing
Tubing
Sucker Rod
Main Pump
Charge Pump
Tagbar/Suction
Torque anchor

5,5" - 15,5 lb/ft

2 7/8" J55 - 6,5 lb/ft
7/8" Grade D
10-1600 NBRA
32-200 NBRA
2 7/8" Slotted 3XL
TX5-2

Areas (in )
OD
ID
5.50
4.95
19.24
2.88
2.44
6.49
4.68
0.88
0.60
3.50
9.62
3.50
9.62
2.88
2.44
6.49
4.68
4.00
2.44
12.57
4.68
Table 2 Input Data for CoHS-1018
OD (in)

ID (in)

Annulus Areas (in )

12.75
Casing-Tubing
9.62
Casing Pump
12.75
Casing- Tagbar
4.08
Tubing Sucker rod
Table 3 Annulus Areas

Displacement
3
(m /d/rpm)

Efficiency (%)

0.10
0.32

Not tested
95

SPE 165077

Settling velocity was calculated based on fluid properties and data from tables 2 and 3, and is presented in the next table:

Settling Velocity (m/s)

Fluid API
17
Oil Cut
55
Sand Density (kg/m3)
2650
Fluid Density (kg/m3)
974
Fluid Viscosity (cp)
210
Reynolds Number
0.1
Resistance Coefficient (CD)
240
Settling Velocity (m/s)
0.0126
Table 4 Settling Velocity

Conventional Pump Velocity Analysis

RPM
50
100
150
200
250
300
350

Suction
Pressure
(psi)
88
88
88
88
88
88
88

Discharge
Pressure
(psi)
987
1014
1041
1067
1094
1121
1148

Flow
Tubing
rate
Velocity
3
(m /d)
(m/s)
899
42.6
2.1
0.0094
926
69.5
7.0
0.0306
953
78.5
11.8
0.0518
979
82.9
16.6
0.0729
1006
85.6
21.5
0.0941
1033
87.4
26.3
0.1153
1060
88.6
31.1
0.1364
Table 5 Conventional Pump Velocity Analysis

Differential
Pressure (psi)

Efficiency
%

Casing-Tubing
Annulus
Velocity (m/s)
0.0156
0.0224
0.0292
0.0360
0.0427
0.0495
0.0563

Casing
Velocity
(m/s)
0.0020
0.0065
0.0110
0.0155
0.0199
0.0244
0.0289

In the case of CoHS-1018 the 10-1600 conventional pump needs to operate at least at 150 rpm to be above sand settling
velocity in the three zones (zone 1: tubing, zone 2: casing-tubing annulus, zone 3: casing).
Charge Pump Velocity Analysis
RPM
50
100
150
200
225
250
300
350

Suction
Pressure
(psi)
74
70
66
62
60
59
56
53

Discharge
Pressure
(psi)
956
991
1027
1064
1083
1102
1139
1178

Differential
Pressure
(psi)
882
921
961
1002
1023
1043
1083
1125

Main Pump
Charge
Tubing
Flow Rate
Pump Flow
Velocity
(m3/d)
Rate (m3/d)
(m/s)
44.8
2.2
15.2
0.010
69.8
7.0
30.4
0.031
78.1
11.7
45.6
0.052
82.2
16.4
60.8
0.072
83.5
18.8
68.4
0.083
84.5
21.1
76.0
0.093
86.1
25.8
91.2
0.114
87.2
30.5
106.4
0.134
Table 6 Charge Pump Velocity Analysis

Efficiency
(%)

The next figure illustrates the zones where the velocity is analyzed:
1. Tubing velocity (not considered since it is the same for both cases)
2. Tubing-casing annulus velocity
3. Casing velocity

Casing/Tubing
Annulus
Velocity (m/s)
0.031
0.046
0.060
0.075
0.082
0.090
0.105
0.119

Casing
Velocity
(m/s)
0.012
0.022
0.032
0.041
0.046
0.051
0.061
0.071

SPE 165077

Figure 3 Zone Analysis

The results from tables 5 and 6 are shown in the next figures for zones 2 and 3.
0.140
0.120

Velocity, m/s

0.100
0.080
0.060
0.040
0.020
0.000

RPM

0

50

100

150

ChPCP

200

250

300

350

400

Conventional PCP

Figure 4 Casing/Tubing annulus velocity comparison

0.080
0.070

Velocity, m/s

0.060
0.050
0.040
0.030
0.020
0.010
0.000

RPM

0

50

100

150

ChPCP

200

250

300

Conventional PCP

Figure 5 Casing velocity comparison

350

400

SPE 165077

In the previous figures it can be seen that the velocity in both zone 2 and zone 3 for the charge pump is almost three times that
of the conventional pump.
Results Analysis
On August 26th 2010 CoHS-1018 became the first well to have a ChPCP installed. Results are compared for wells CoHS-1018,
ECN-0164 and PP-0110, although seven systems have been installed so far (wells CoHS-1018, CoHS-1020, CoHS-2007,
ECN-0164, ECN-0264, ER-0006 and PP-0110). These three wells had stable operating parameters and had no disturbances
that could cause misleading conclusions. In the next figure is the comparison of the annualized flush-by index (N Flushby/well/year).
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0

CoHS-1018

ECN-0164

Conv PCP Flush-by Index

PP-0110

Charge PCP Flush-by Index

Figure 6 Annualized Flush-by index comparison

The other wells were studied independently since their operating conditions changed radically after installation or operated
from the beginning with ChPCP (CoHS-1020). In the case of CoHS-1020 the comparison is made against its neighbours who
produce from the same levels and have conventional pumps.
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0

CoHS-2003

CoHS-2002

Flush-by Index

CoHS-1021

CoHS-1020

Average Neighbours

Figure 7 Flush-by index por CoHS-1020 and its neighbours

An individual analysis is presented below for ER-0006, ECN-0264 and CoHs-2007 since each well had its own peculiarities.
ECN-0264: this well was perforated in 2010 and it was put straight in production with a ChPCP. It stopped producing after
only six days in operation. The well was pulled and the main pump came out with its elastomer completely vulcanized. In the
failure analysis it was concluded that since the slotted nipple was above the perforations all the gas produced went through the
main pump, causing it to overheat due the low capacity of the gas to dissipate heat. This shows that both conventional and

SPE 165077

ChPCPs have the same issues when it comes to gas handling. Nevertheless there are successful experiences in high GVF wells
where the charge pump precompresses the gas (Robles et al. 2011).
CoHS-2007: this well was perfortated in 2012 and after a series of problems with conventional PCPs a ChPCP was installed.
At the start up of the ChPCP the well did not produce. Water was injected through the annulus with negative results. The pump
was pulled and again the main pump elastomer was vulcanized. The root cause of this failure has not yet been determined and
this case is still undergoing analysis.
ER-0006: the ChPCP was installed on 5 November 2012, so at the moment of writing this paper there is not enough
information available for analysis.
Despite having experience with conventional PCPs, the ChPCPs have their own learning process related to design, installation
and operation. As with every other artificial lift system it is extremely important the design of the bottom hole assembly and
the analysis of the produced fluid properties.
Conclusions
1.
2.
3.
4.

An alternative production system for high sand cut wells was found (4-5% continuous and up to 25% slugs) that also
reduces by half flush-by interventions due to sanded pump. Velocities in the critical zones are three times higher,
reducing sand settling and its associated issues.
Both charge and conventional PCPs cannot be installed in wells with intermittent production neither be operated onoff. When producing sand the best practice is to have continuous operation.
In gas producing wells both pumps and its slotted nipples need to be installed below perforations to avoid premature
failure. Though there are case studies where the charge pump was used as a precompressor or gas separator in
horizontal wells, this was not the case.
Well testing duration is reduced 12 to 16 hours, since this system is capable of handling a larger sand percentage than
conventional PCPs.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank everyone in Pluspetrol SA and Weatherford Intl. who supported this project from the
beginning and helped in its implementation.
References
Cevallos, Vaamonde, Rivero, Rojas, Joo Kim, Galarza and Legarreta 2011. Exploration and development of a heavy oil field
in Ro Colorado, northwest margin Neuquen Basin, Argentina (in Spanish) presented at IAPG Hydrocarbon
Exploration and Development Seminar, Mar del Plata, Argentina, 8-11 November 2011.
Montiveros, Echavarra, Sez, Ortiz Best and Fernndez 2012. Completion and production techniques for sand producing non
consolidated reservoirs from Centenario formation (in Spanish), presented at IAPG Enhanced Oil Recovery Seminar
Mendoza, Argentina, 19-21 September 2012.
Robles, Perez, Bettenson and Noble 2011. Design and application of charge PCP systems in high GVF heavy oil wells. Paper
SPE 153038, presented at SPE Progressing Cavity Pumps Conference, Edmonton, Canada, 12-14 September 2010.