Section 2.2 Pertinent Types of Artificial Lift

Prepared by Artificial
Guidelines Lift R&D Council Practices

& Recommended
Selection of Artificial Lift Systems
for Deliquifying Gas Wells
Prepared by Artificial Lift R&D Council
Status
 Document written and edited
 Chair: Dr. James Lea, jamesflea@aol.com
 Team: Cleon Dunham
 Comments: Not applicable
2.3 Artificial Lift Selection Methods

This presents information that may assist with the selection of artificial lift for gas
wells
 Advantages / Disadvantages
 Rules of thumb
 Depth/ Rate capabilities
 Power consumption
1. Selection of Deliquification Method

 There is no generally accepted method for selecting the “best” artificial lift method for gas well de-
liquification.
 There are many factors to consider.
 Consideration of some factors can lead to improved selection.
 Some (not all) important factors are considered here.
2. Some Popular Artificial Lift Methods

 Electrical submersible pumping
 Progressing cavity pumping
 Beam pumping
 Hydraulic pumping
 Gas lift
 Velocity strings
 Compression systems
 Plungers
 Foaming
 Injection systems
3. Artificial Lift Selection Process

 Make a “Rough Cut” choice with Artificial Lift Screening Criteria
 Review Feasibility / Functionality of Artificial Lift Methods
 Evaluate Cost --- CAPEX, OPEX
 Consider Availability, Use of Reservoir Energy
 Consider Availability of Required Infrastructure
Selection of Artificial Lift Systems for Deliquifying Gas Wells Page 2
 Consider Availability of Required Operator Training
4. Approximate Capital Costs (CAPEX)

 Indication If Electrical Energy is Needed
 Is an Injection Line is Needed
 Is energy is Needed from the Reservoir
 The Degree of Involvement Needed by the Operators
5. Critical Gas Flow Rate as a Function of Tubing Size and Wellhead Pressure
6. Operating Costs:
– Power efficiency may be defined as: the fraction of the power used to lift liquids divided
by the total power supplied.
– Assume a 20 hp load for all methods (when applicable), 4000’ lift, 20 bpd, specific gravity =
1.0, and efficiency as defined below. Assume 200 barrels per day for high rate lift methods.
– Efficiency =  = .00000736 (Lift, ft) (BPD) () / (kW/.746)
– kW = .00000736 x 20 x 4000 x 1.0 x 0.746/  = 0.4356/
7. Assume electrical costs of $0.08/ (kW-hr)
– $/year = 0.4356 x 0.08 x 365 x 24 /  = 305 / 
– $/year  300/ for low rate case of 20 bpd
– $/year  3000/ for high rate case of 200 bpd

Method: 
ESP 40
PCP 60
Beam 50
Hydraulic jet 20
Gas lift 20
Velocity strings -
Compression 80
Plungers -
Foaming -
Injection systems -
8. Ranges of Efficiency for Different Artificial Lift Methods

By Weatherford (above)
9. Pros and Cons for Different Artificial Lift Methods
Table of Lift Pros/Cons

10. Lift Rate Screening Chart for High Rate Wells (from Weatherford)
11. Lift Rate Screening Chart for Low Rate Wells (from Weatherford)
12. Possible Pressure Drawdown Capabilities

13. Examples of Selection Trees or Flow Charts for Selection of Lift Method to
Dewater
Monthly Production Data
Generate Velocity Profiles
no Does Available Data Indicate Liquid Loading

yes
Run Pressure Gradient Survey no Has a Pressure Gradient survey Been Run?
yes
Open All Cotton Valley Pay no Is All Cotton Valley Pay Open?
yes
Install Soap Injection yes Is Soap Injection Feasible?
no
Install Small Diameter Tubing yes Well Workover Scheduled?
no
Lower the Flowing Tubing Pressure yes Can the Flowing Tubing Pressure be
Lowered?
no
Implement a Pseudo-Gas Lift System yes Can a Pseudo-Gas Lift System be
Implemented Without Killing the Well
no
Install a Plunger Lift yes Is Plunger Lift Feasible?
no
Install Gas Lift yes Is Gas Lift practical?
no
Install Beam Lift yes Is Beam Lift Practical?
no
Produce to Depletion
Plug & Abandon

Selection Chart: For discussion
Check for loading:

•Critical velocity or rate?
•Falls off decline curve and stays
there?
•Initiation of slugging?
•Difference between tbg-csg pressure
increases with time?
•Other?
Team meeting:
•Establish stable rate (swab?)
•Determine gas rate, condensate rate,
water rate
•Some operators check flowing
pressure survey
Screen AL method considering conditions
Sand? Hi-Rate? Hi Surf P? Lo Rate?

PCP, ESP, Compress, 1. Swab,
Gaslift,
Gaslift, Pump, 2. Stop Clock,
Velocity
Velocity Other? 3. Plunger,
String,
String,
Foam , 4. Gaslift,
some Beam,
5. Foam,
pumping
Other?
methods 6. Pumping
methods
7. Other?
Preferred? For discussion:

1. Plunger (conventional, two piece, free cycle,
other? if feasible)
2. Foam (soap sticks(shallow), batch treat with no
packer, Cap tube injection with packer present if
water and no high condensate.
3. Gaslift
4. Pumping methods (Beam, ESP, Diaphragm, PCP,
Hydraulic, other?)
5. Consider special devices: Collar inserts, Vortex,
Goal, other?
6. Inject water if feasible
14. Example Problem to Show Selection Process for Dewatering Technique: Ca-
pacity and Economics Selection
Base Data: Tubulars for Cases (1) &(2) Tubulars for Cases (3) &(4)
Depth=9800 2 3/8 tubing 4 1/2 casing 2 7/8 tubing 5 1/2 casing
(1.995"id) (4.00" ID) (2.441"id) (5.044" ID)
BHT=320F WHT=150F WHP=300 psia

GG=.6 WG=1.0 API=35
Q=C(Pr^2-
WC(fraction)=5. Pr=1111 psia n=1.0 Pwf^2)^n C given below
Roughness=.0018 Inject gaslift at For pumps as- Cap String: Use

EOT sume liquid level inputs for Surfac-
at EOT tants
Plunger Specific Da- Max

ta> Pcsg=900psi Min Pcsg=150psi
(1 )Low Gas , (2) Low Gas, (3) High Gas, Low (4) High Gas,
Low Liquids High Liquids Liquids High Liquids
C (Mscfd/psi^2n) = 0.0003 0.0003 0.0006 0.0006
bbl/mmscf= 50 300 50 300
Gaslift Gaslift Gaslift Gaslift

Mscf/D Max= determine determine determine determine
BPD, Max= determine determine determine determine
Pumps Pumps Pumps Pumps
Cap String Cap String Cap String Cap String
Plunger Plunger Plunger Plunger
Smaller Tubing Smaller Tubing Smaller Tubing Smaller Tubing
The results below are obtained from SNAP for gas-lift; SNAP and Prodop for Cap Stringws; PDA for
plunger lift; and SNAP for pumps.
 SNAP is available from Ryder Scott Company (http://www.ryderscott.com)
 Prodop is available from Weatherford
(http://www.weatherford.com/Products/Production/ProductionOptimization/
 PDA is available from PL Tech, LLC (http://www.pltechllc.com/)
It is assumed that pumps (beam or electrical submersible pump) could be used to pull the fluid level down
to above the perforations. Costs for beam are used here.
Case (1) Gaslift
Case(2) Gaslift
Case(3) Gaslift
Case(4) Gaslift
Case (1) & (2) Pumps

Case (3) & (4) Pumps
Case (1) Cap String

Case (2) Cap String
Case (3) Cap String

Case (4) Cap String

Case (1) Plunger
Case (2) Plunger

Case (3) Plunger
Case (4) Plunger

RESULTS FROM
ABOVE ANALYSES:
Mscf/D & BPD
GASLIFT GAS 288 245 583 490

GASLIFT LIQUIDS 14 74 29 149
PUMPS GAS 332 332 664 664
PUMPS LIQUID 17 100 33 199
CAP STRING GAS 307 284 617 573
CAP STRING LIQUID 15 85 31 172
PLUNGER GAS 240 N0 583 NO
PLUNGER LIQUID 12 NO 29 NO
Below are economic calculations for a 5 year period with constant production. No fail- Commented [MSOffice1]: What are the headings for the
columns of the table above??
ures are assumed. This is for illustration to show how a longer term more exact calcula-
tion could be used given this type of data.
See installation and operating costs tables at end of document.

Case (1) Gaslift 283 MscfD and 7 bpd condensate

Initial Cost -$28,000.00
Operating Cost -$192,000.00
Gas Revenue $2,065,900.00
BPD revenue $1,277,500.00
Total Revenue 5 yr $3,123,400.00
Case (2) Gaslift 245 MscfD and 37 bpd condensate

Case (3) Gaslift 583 MscfD and 14.5 bpd condensate

Case (4) Gaslift 490 MscfD and 74.5 bpd condensate

BPD revenue $13,596,250.00
Case (1) Pumps 332 MscfD and 8.5 bpd condensate

Case (2) Pumps 332 MscfD and 50 bpd condensate

Case (3) Pumps 664 MscfD and16.5 bpd condensate

Case (4) Pumps 664 MscfD and 99.5 bpd condensate

BPD revenue $18,158,750.00
Case (1) Cap String 307 MscfD and 7.5 bpd condensate
Case (2) Cap String 284 MscfD and 42.5 bpd conden-
sate
Case (3) Cap String 617 MscfD and 15.5 bpd conden-
sate
Case (4) Cap String 573 MscfD and 86 bpd condensate

BPD revenue $13,140,000.00
Case (1) Plunger 240 MscfD and 6 bpd condensate

Case (2) Plunger 240 MscfD and 6 bpd condensate

PLUNGER WILL NOT WORK
Case (3) Plunger 583 MscfD and 14.5 bpd condensate

Case (4) Plunger 410 MscfD and 62.5 bpd condensate

PLUNGER WILL NOT WORK
Summary Table
Case Gaslift Pumps Cap String Plunger

1 $3,123,400.00 $3,832,850.00 $4,296,850.00 $2,827,000.00
2 $8,321,000.00 $11,406,600.00 $9,786,450.00 NO
3 $6,682,150.00 $10,727,700.00 $7,289,850.00 $6,882,150.00
4 $16,953,250.00 $22,863,950.00 $17,279,900.00 NO
The summary for the 5 year revenues above show pumps are the best for all but the low gas, low liquids
case where the lower cost of cap string makes it the best. It is understood that the techniques for predict-
ing some of these cases (especially for the cap string and plunger ) are approximate and the techniques
will improve with time. The concepts should remain intact.
Below are installation and operating costs courtesy Weatherford used for the above calculations. It is un-
derstood that these costs could vary widely in different parts of the world. Weatherford gives approximate
costs for somewhat higher liquid rates but for simplicity all costs were used from the below two tables.
Copyright
Rights to this information are owned by the Artificial Lift Research and Development
Council (ALRDC). This material may be used by any member of ALRDC in any way
they see fit as long as they refer to the ALRDC Artificial Lift Selection document where it
is presented.
Disclaimer
The Artificial Lift Research and Development Council (ALRDC) and its officers and
trustees, (here in after referred to as the Sponsoring Organization), and the au-
thor(s) of this Information and their company(ies), provide this information "as is"
without any warranty of any kind, express or implied, as to the accuracy of the in-
formation or the products or services referred to in the information (in so far as such
warranties may be excluded under any relevant law) and these members and their
companies will not be liable for unlawful
actions and any losses or damage that may result from use of any information as a
consequence of any inaccuracies in, or any omission from, the information which
therein may be contained.
The views, opinions, and conclusions expressed in this information are those of the
author(s) and not necessarily those of the Sponsoring Organization. The author(s)
are solely responsible for the content of the materials.
The Sponsoring Organization cannot and does not warrant the accuracy of these
documents beyond the source documents, although we do make every attempt to
work from authoritative sources. The Sponsoring Organization provides this infor-
mation as a service. The Sponsoring Organization make no representations or war-
ranties, express or implied, with respect to the information, or any part thereof, in-
cluding any warrantees of title, non infringement of copyright or patent rights of oth-
ers, merchantability, or fitness or suitability for any purpose.

Section 2.2 Pertinent Types of Artificial Lift

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

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

Section 2.2 Pertinent Types of Artificial Lift

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Prepared by Artificial

Guidelines Lift R&D Council Practices

2.3 Artificial Lift Selection Methods

1. Selection of Deliquification Method

2. Some Popular Artificial Lift Methods

3. Artificial Lift Selection Process

 Consider Availability of Required Operator Training

4. Approximate Capital Costs (CAPEX)

– Efficiency =  = .00000736 (Lift, ft) (BPD) () / (kW/.746)

– kW = .00000736 x 20 x 4000 x 1.0 x 0.746/  = 0.4356/

7. Assume electrical costs of $0.08/ (kW-hr)

– $/year = 0.4356 x 0.08 x 365 x 24 /  = 305 / 

– $/year  300/ for low rate case of 20 bpd

– $/year  3000/ for high rate case of 200 bpd

8. Ranges of Efficiency for Different Artificial Lift Methods

9. Pros and Cons for Different Artificial Lift Methods

Table of Lift Pros/Cons

12. Possible Pressure Drawdown Capabilities

Monthly Production Data

Generate Velocity Profiles

no Does Available Data Indicate Liquid Loading

Plug & Abandon

Selection Chart: For discussion

Check for loading:

Screen AL method considering conditions

Sand? Hi-Rate? Hi Surf P? Lo Rate?

Preferred? For discussion:

BHT=320F WHT=150F WHP=300 psia

Roughness=.0018 Inject gaslift at For pumps as- Cap String: Use

Plunger Specific Da- Max

Gaslift Gaslift Gaslift Gaslift

Case (1) Gaslift

Case (1) & (2) Pumps

Case (3) & (4) Pumps

Case (1) Cap String

Case (2) Cap String

Case (3) Cap String

Case (4) Cap String

Case (1) Plunger

Case (2) Plunger

Case (3) Plunger

Case (4) Plunger

GASLIFT GAS 288 245 583 490

See installation and operating costs tables at end of document.

Case (1) Gaslift 283 MscfD and 7 bpd condensate

Case (2) Gaslift 245 MscfD and 37 bpd condensate

Case (3) Gaslift 583 MscfD and 14.5 bpd condensate

Case (4) Gaslift 490 MscfD and 74.5 bpd condensate

Case (1) Pumps 332 MscfD and 8.5 bpd condensate

Case (2) Pumps 332 MscfD and 50 bpd condensate

Case (3) Pumps 664 MscfD and16.5 bpd condensate

Case (4) Pumps 664 MscfD and 99.5 bpd condensate

Case (4) Cap String 573 MscfD and 86 bpd condensate

Case (1) Plunger 240 MscfD and 6 bpd condensate

Case (2) Plunger 240 MscfD and 6 bpd condensate

Case (3) Plunger 583 MscfD and 14.5 bpd condensate

Case (4) Plunger 410 MscfD and 62.5 bpd condensate

Case Gaslift Pumps Cap String Plunger

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen