Slide Presentation PDF

ESP-Reliability Information and
Failure Tracking System
ESP-RIFTS
Joint Industry Project
- An Overview –
ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

March 2009 Slide 1
ESP-RIFTS JIP
The Vision…

March 2009 Slide 2
Total Workover Cost
vs. ESP Run Life (Onshore)
$40 6%
Total Cost Servicing Cost

$35
5%
$30
4%
True
Workover $25 True
Costs Workover
($millions/ Cost
year) (%Revenue)
$20 3%
$15
2%
$10
1%
$5
$0 0%
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960
Average Operating Period (days)

March 2009 Slide 3
Operators want to…
Improve ESP Run-Life in existing applications

Improve the chances of success in new applications
Extend range and reliability of current ESP
technology
Get a better understanding of the factors affecting
ESP Run-Life

March 2009 Slide 4
The Vision …
Access a large set of hard ESP reliability data

¾ To avoid educated guesses
Ensure this reliability data is consistent
¾ To avoid misunderstanding
Incorporate reliability engineering analysis tools
¾ To analyze data appropriately
Benchmark results against other operators
¾ To determine attainable performance targets
Learn from others experience
¾ To find out what you can do to achieve better performance

March 2009 Slide 5
ESP-RIFTS JIP was formed in 1999 ..
ESP Operators joined efforts to pursue..
“… development of an industry wide Electric

Submersible Pump (ESP) - Reliability Information
and Failure Tracking System (ESP-RIFTS), which
will permit sharing of ESP run-life and failure
information among a number of operators.”
“… ultimate goals ... [they] are two fold: (1) to

accelerate the learning curve associated with new
ESP applications; and (2) to increase average ESP
run-life and operating range, by transferring
knowledge and experience across the industry”

March 2009 Slide 6
Implementation
Strategy…

March 2009 Slide 7
System Concept: Interface
End Users
Multiple users world-wide
Internet interface • System Maintenance
• Data Processing
World-Wide • Benchmarking Analysis
Network
ESP-RIFTS
http://www.esprifts.com

March 2009 Slide 8
System Features ESP-RIFTS
1. Standard terminology (ESP Failure Nomenclature Standard)
Consistency in classifying, recording and storing information
2. Common set of parameters (General Data Set)
Tracked by all Participants in the project
3. Data Input Sheet (DIS)
To assist in data collection, maintenance and upload
4. Procedure to ensure certain standards of data “quality”
5. Database structure to store the data collected
6. Internet based system
Participants select records of interest
Examine the contents of such records
Conduct a variety of analyses with them
7. Set of reliability tools to support data analysis
Various run-life measures, reliability functions and distributions
Confidence level calculations
8. Model to predict run-life under new conditions (“What if”)
Calibrated with database information

March 2009 Slide 9
ESP-RIFTS
Failure Nomenclature Standard
Standard terminology for classifying, recording and

storing ESP failure information,
¾ Leading to consistency in failure analysis performed with data
gathered by different operating and service companies
Conforms to (as much as possible):
1) International Standard ISO/DIS 14224
2) API RP 11S1
In general:
Broad definitions and failure attribute classifications were
borrowed from the ISO/DIS 14224*;
Nomenclature for components, parts and teardown
observations were borrowed from the API RP 11S1
*ISO 14224: Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries:

Collection and Exchange of Reliability and Maintenance Data for Equipment

March 2009 Slide 10
1. Standard terminology (ESP Failure Nomenclature Standard)
2. Common set of parameters (General and Minimum Data Sets)

March 2009 Slide 11
ESP-RIFTS : MinimumData Set (1)
Minimum Data Set
Parameter
Field Information Field Name
Field Type
Fluid Information Oil Density
Bottomhole Temperature (BHT) List of ~ 37 key parameters
Well Information Well Name
Reservoir(s) Type Subset of the General Data
Casing Size
Runtime Data (dates) Production Period No.
Set
Date Started(2)
Date Failed / Shutdown Developed with the input of
Failure Information ESP System Failed?
Primary Failed Item
the ESP-RIFTS Steering
Primary Failure Descriptor Committee
Surface Equipment Data Control Panel Type
Downhole Equipment Data Pump Vendor
Pump Type/Model
Attempted to be consistent
Number of Pump Stages with other recommended
Seal Vendor
Seal Type/Model parameter lists
Motor Vendor
Motor Type/Model ¾ SPE ESP Workshop
Motor Horsepower
Pump Intake /Gas Separator Vendor
Pump Intake /Gas Separator Type
The Minimum information
Cable Vendor
Cable Model/Size
that an ESP “Failure” record
Operating and Production Data
Pump Seating Depth (PSD)
Total Flow Rate
must have to be considered
Water Cut (or oil and water rates)
Pump Intake Pressure (PIP)
“Complete” (as per the ESP-
Average data for period or more frequent
e.g., monthly or number of intervals (must
Gas-Oil Ratio (GOR) or gas rate
Sand Production (Concentration)
RIFTS Qualification
provide start and end dates of these
intervals) during which operating conditions
were reasonalby constant.
Scale (None/Light/Moderate/Severe)
Asphaltene (None/ Light/Moderate/Severe)
Standard)
CO2 (Concentration)
H2S (Concentration)
Emulsion (None/Light/Moderate/Severe)
Number M inimum Data Set Parameters = 37
March 2009 Slide 12
1. Standard terminology (PCP Failure Nomenclature Standard)
Developed for ESP-RIFTS
March 2009 Slide 13
Data Processing and Qualification
Overview
Participants Data Processing

FTP
Participants send new data
C-FER processes and
& data updates to C-FER enters data into the
Development Server
Feedback from C-FER to the Participants:

• Apparent problems with the data Data
• Processed data sent back to Participants in ESP-RIFTS or Qualification
PCP-RIFTS Data Input Sheet
Participants conduct Processed data

Data analyses via the web and New Web
Collection pages are
Data Production uploaded to the Development
Analysis Server Production Server Server
Web

March 2009 Slide 14
Data Qualification
Objectives
Our confidence in any analysis will always be

strongly dependant on our perception of the
quality of the data collected
Goal of data qualification process is to yield
“quality data”; as per the ISO Standard:
¾ Complete – in relation to a specification
¾ Compatible and Consistent – with a standard set of
definitions and formats, with other information pertaining to
the record, with the principles of PCP technology and with
basic laws of engineering/science
¾ Accurate – truly representative of the PCP installation that it
describes

March 2009 Slide 15
Data Input Sheet (DIS)
Microsoft®
Access based
database file with
structure similar
to ESP-RIFTS
master database
Developed to
assist in data
collection and
qualification
Field level data
capture and
tracking

March 2009 Slide 16
DIS
Benefits to the Participants
Ability to check and improve their own records before sending the
data to C-FER
DIS can generate automated reports on level of completeness
and inconsistencies
Ability to analyze the data shortly after providing data to C-FER
DIS allows for quicker data processing, qualification and
uploading by C-FER
Ability to work in different unit systems
SI, British and North Sea units
Ability to work in different languages
Currently English, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian and French
Ability to perform basic Analysis on your own data
Run-Life Calculations (e.g. MTTF, Average Runtime), Reliability
Functions (e.g. Survival Probability), Failure Rates by ESP
Component) and Reporting of Results

March 2009 Slide 17
DIS
Run-Life Calculations
Select either chart

or table output
format
Results can be
saved and printed

March 2009 Slide 18
DIS
Reliability Functions
Grouping Variables:
• Company, Division, Field, Well
• MORE options have been added as
well (e.g. Cable AWG Size, Motor
Series, Solids?, etc.)
Survival Probability and Hazard

Function shown

March 2009 Slide 19
DIS
Failure Rates by ESP Component
Output Options Include:

1. Service-Life of Failed
2. Number of Failed ESPs
3. Average Runtime of Failed
4. Failure Rate
Field A Field D Field F
Field B Field E Field G
Field C
Outputs Segregated by:
1. Failed Item – Main Component
2. Failed Item – Subcomponent
3. Failure Cause: General
Grouping Variables:
• Company, Division, Field, Well
• MORE options will be added
soon (e.g. Vendor, Model #), as
in the Website
Note: Field names have been “masked” for confidentiality
March 2009 Slide 20
DIS
Reporting
Enhanced Summary report
Percentage
breakdown of all the
specific vendors for
the ESP motors and
pumps in the
specific DIS file.

March 2009 Slide 21
Data Processing
Locations of Fields in ESP-RIFTS
Note: Company IDs have been “masked” for confidentiality
BP Kuwait Oil Company Saudi Aramco

Chevron Nexen Shell
ConocoPhillips PDVSA Shell PDO
EnCana Petrobras Statoil
ExxonMobil Repsol YPF TNK-BP
TOTAL
March 2009 Slide 22
Grow of Database
as of March 2009
79,754 ESP Installs as of March 2009
90000
•17 companies
79754
80000 •88 divisions
70000 •494 fields 70548
•25454 wells 60813

60000
Number of Production Periods
60237
50000
40000
26071
30000 17898
15272
20000 12606 13897
7590 9366
3940
10000 1854
1673
0
7/4/2000
8/2/2002
4/7/2003
10/27/2003
2/3/2004
4/8/2004
10/15/2004
11/6/2006
4/1/2007
3/1/2009
4/25/2000
11/20/2000
4/25/2001
11/28/2001
4/22/2002
10/11/2002
12/5/2002
12/9/2004
4/14/2005
11/17/2005
5/19/2006
11/14/2007
6/15/2008
12/3/2008
Date

March 2009 Slide 23
System Features for ESP-RIFTS

March 2009 Slide 24
Database Structure
Five main groups of data
Field, Well, Fluid, and Reservoir data
¾ Field, Reservoir, Drilling/Completion, Fluid, Workovers, Operator info.
Run time information
¾ Install, Start, Stop, Pull dates, etc.
Production and Operating Information
¾ Producing rates, GOR, BSW, Fluid Level, Wellhead and Bottom Hole
Pressure and Temperature
Failure data
¾ Item(s), Descriptor, Mode, Cause
¾ Teardown/Inspection reports, bench test reports, photographs,
scanned documents
¾ Comments
Equipment data
¾ Motor model, Motor HP, Intake Model, Cable Size, Manufacturer
“Catalogue” information

March 2009 Slide 25
Database Structure (cont’d)
The link between these groups of data is a
Production Period, which includes
One specific ESP or PCP assembly
Installed, Started, Stopped and Pulled
Serial numbers, completion assembly/sequence in the well
and associated surface/downhole equipment
Well Service and Production/Operating histories
1000
Production Period
Oil
Daily Water
Rate 100
Workover
Workover
Workover
Workover
Water
Rate
WOR
10
Daily Oil
WOR
1
Mar-95 Sep-95 Mar-96 Sep-96 Mar-97 Sep-97 Mar-98 Sep-98 Mar-99

March 2009 Slide 26

March 2009 Slide 27
Measures of Run-Life

March 2009 Slide 28
Some Key Concepts
Censoring
For some systems, the RL is not known:

Systems still running
Systems pulled for reasons other than a system failure
The data is said to be “censored”
However, proper analysis must consider all data
Considering only the failed items will tend to underestimate
the reliability of the system
Therefore, all systems must be tracked:
Pulled systems
¾ Failed
¾ Not Failed
Running systems

March 2009 Slide 29
Run-Life Flow Chart
Running Valid Last Date

# still running
Period Status
# all periods Yes
# failed
Completed ESP System Failed ?
# completed
No
# not failed

March 2009 Slide 30
Reliability Functions

March 2009 Slide 31
Survival and Hazard Curves

March 2009 Slide 32
Component Failure Rates

March 2009 Slide 33
Failure Rates of Cables for a Field
FR of New Cable is
4 times smaller than
that of Used Cable

March 2009 Slide 34

March 2009 Slide 35
What-If Model
A “Proportional-Hazard-Model” based on data in

the System
Some details presented by C-FER in the 2003 ESP-
Workshop
Has evolved with time
Allows for benchmarking taking into account
differences in operating conditions
One way to identify key influential factors affecting
Run-Life

March 2009 Slide 36
What-If Model (contd.)
Field A Field B Field C
Low R-L High R-L

but above expectations but below expectations
March 2009 Slide 37
Some Analysis Examples
Using Website Data and Tools

March 2009 Slide 38
How is My Field doing?
- MTTF and Average Run-Life -
Based on Date Installed, MTTF shows continuous improvement

Uncertainty bars on MTTF depend on number of failed systems
Average Run-Life decrease in 2003-3005 is does not necessarily
indicate worse performance
Only indicates that more recently installed systems are “younger”

March 2009 Slide 39
- Cumulative and Moving Window metrics -
Based on more recent data (i.e. Moving Window of last 1200 days at each point in time),
MTTF and Average Run-Life shows larger improvement than based on all (cumulative)
data
Not shown (but available): Other R-L metrics used by Operators
All have advantages and disadvantages
Some are indicators of “age of population” and not necessarily equipment reliability

March 2009 Slide 40
- Primary Failed Items and Failure Mechanisms -
Periods with Failures at t ≤ 90 days All Failed Periods
Primary Failed Items: Primary Failed Items:

Motors 36.8% Pumps 33.8%
Cables 21.1% Motors 22.4%
Pumps 21.1% Intakes 18.8%
Intakes 9.2% Cables 16.5%
Seals 9.2% Seals 6.5%
Most Severe Mechanisms: Most Severe Mechanisms:
Short Circuited Motors 14.5% Broken Pumps 14.1%
Short Circuited Cables 14.5% Short Circuited Cable 11.5%
Phase Unbal. Motors 9.2% Short Circuited Motor 10.6%
Plugged Pumps 7.9% Stuck Pumps 6.5%
Broken/Fract. Intakes 7.9% Fractured Pumps 6.2%
Overheated Motors 4.0% Phase Unbal. Motors 4.4%
Low Impedance Motors 4.0% Plugged Pumps 2.9%
Failure Mechanisms are different for early and

all failures
March 2009 Slide 41
- Failure Rates (FRs) by ESP system component: evolution with time -
Note: Dashed red lines represent “eye-balled” trend.
FR’s of Pump Intakes, Seals and Cables show deceasing trend (improving)
FR of Motors shows increasing trend
FR of Pumps varies with no clear trend
Pump and Motors are components currently with higher FRs

March 2009 Slide 42
- Failure Rates (FRs): effect of scale -
Moderate
Severe
ESP Pumps are affected by severe

scaling conditions: +44% higher FR’s
than for moderate scaling conditions.
Primary ESP
ESP ESP ESP ESP ESP
Failed ... Assembly Cable Motor Pump
Pump ESP Seal
Shroud
Item Intake
Failure Failure Failure Failure Failure Failure Failure
Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate
Scale?
(×10- (×10- (×10- (×10-
(×10-
(×10-
... (×10-6/day) 6 6 6 6 6 6
/day) /day) /day) /day) /day) /day)
Moderate ... 12.47 130.97 180.86 224.51 155.91 81.07 0
Severe ... 8.2 143.57 192.79 324.05 159.97 36.92 4.1
Total ... 9.9 138.57 188.05 284.56 158.36 54.44 2.47
9.6% 6.6% 44.3% 2.6% -54.5%
March 2009 Slide 43
How does My Field compare with “similar” fields?
- Search data in the system -
[Artificial Lift Type]='ESP' AND [Production Role]='Oil Production' AND [Qualification Status]<>'Incomplete-No Dates or
Failure Information' AND [Qualification Status]<>'Inconsistent Records' AND [Qualification Status]<>'Historical' AND
[Pump Seating Depth MD]>'700' AND [Pump Seating Depth MD]<'1500' AND [CO2 (% by Volume)]>'50' AND [Water
Cut]>'70' AND [Total Flow Rate]<='500' AND [Gas Oil Ratio (GOR)]<='300'
My Field* Periods by Field

Average MTTF
Medium Total Rates
High WC
Medium Sand
Medium-High API
High CO2
Low GOR
Low Temperature
Shallow PSD
One dominant
vendor Field B has a large # of “similar” records
Onshore Other fields have just a few records
Note: Company Names have been “masked” for confidentiality
March 2009 Slide 44
Comparison of Cumulative MTTF and
Average Run-Life
1443
1318
512 507
B Field My Field
MTTF is approximately 4 months lower in My Field

March 2009 Slide 45
Closure

March 2009 Slide 46
Current Project Participants
Project Phases Current Participants
I: Nov. 1999 – Jul.2000
II: Aug.2000 – Apr. 2001 BP
ChevronTexaco
¾ Project Web Site: online since
July 2000 ConocoPhillips
EnCana
III: May 2001 – Apr. 2002 ExxonMobil
IV: May 2002 – Apr. 2003 Nexen
Petrobras
V: May 2003 – Apr. 2004 Repsol-YPF
VI: May 2004 – Apr. 2005 Shell Intl.
StatoilHydro
VII: May 2005 – Apr. 2006
TNK-BP
VIII: May 2006 – Apr. 2007 TOTAL
IX: May 2007 – Apr. 2008
X: May 2008 – Apr. 2009

March 2009 Slide 47
Benefits to New Participants
Upon joining ESP-RIFTS
1. Immediate access to the system - user accounts will be

assigned to a number of New Participant personnel
2. Ability to query the data and conduct analyses - display the
results in a number of numerical and graphical formats
3. Improved ability to make good decisions on issues affecting
ESP run life
4. Access to about US$ 3,500,000 worth of work conducted in
the previous phases of the JIP (phases I - IX)
5. Two-Three day workshop (at a location of choice) to quickly
bring the New Participant personnel up to speed
6. Improved understanding of run-life and failure tracking issues
and analysis techniques
7. Opportunity to upgrade current ESP failure tracking systems
to the ESP-RIFTS standard:
Achieving consistency within own Company
Achieving consistency within the group of industry Participants

March 2009 Slide 48
Benefits to New Participants
Long-Term Benefits
1. Business results, which can span over a variety of aspects,

including:
Improved chances of overall economic success in new projects
¾ Because there will be less uncertainty in the expected run-life
Reduced production losses in the upcoming years
¾ Because improved rig scheduling will be possible
Improved overall run-life and reduced operational costs
¾ Because best practices can be implemented
2. Business results can start to be obtained as soon as possible
¾ In terms of run-life, the effects of good decisions made at one point in
time are only felt in the long term
3. Ability to make direct benchmark comparisons
¾ Within own Company’s operations
¾ Within the Participants' operations
4. Guidelines for negotiations between the Participant and ESP
vendors (e.g., as in alliance situations)
¾ Using benchmarks established with the system

March 2009 Slide 49
Fee Structure
Year 2009/2010 (Phase XI)
New Participant Fee

US$ 48,000 (one-time)
¾ Covers
Initial Development Cost Sharing
New Participant Orientations (in-house training)
Mapping and Input of Historical Data
JIP Participation Fee

US$48,000
¾ Covers Core Tasks
Data Processing and Qualification
Data Analysis (within the limits of the System)
Web Site Maintenance
Project Steering Committee Meetings (Nov/Dec 2009 and Apr/May 2010)
Project Management and Reporting

March 2009 Slide 50
Further Documentation Available
Project web site: http://www.esprifts.com
General Information on the ESP-RIFTS JIP
Benefits to New Participants: http://www.esprifts.com/Benefits.pdf
Detailed work scope, deliverables, and milestone schedule for

Phase X:
http://www.esprifts.com/Workscope%20Phase%20X.pdf
2001 SPE - ESP Workshop Paper

“ESP Failures: Can We Talk the Same Language?”
2003 SPE - ESP Workshop Paper
“Benchmarking ESP Run Life Accounting for Application
Differences”
For addition information, please contact:

Jesús E. Chacín
tel: (780) 450-8989 ext 224
e-mail: f.alhanati@cfertech.com

March 2009 Slide 51
Support Slides

March 2009 Slide 52
Predicting ESP Run Life
for New Applications
Questions in field development feasibility studies
What is the expected ESP run life for the field?
What are the future service rig requirements for the field?
What type of equipment is best suited for a given application?
¾ E.g., Is the run life for wells equipped with VSDs the same as wells
equipped with switch boxes?
¾ E.g., Are coiled tubing deployed systems less reliable than systems
deployed on jointed tubing? If so, how much?
What is the effect of well completion type on ESP run life?
¾ E.g., Should sand control (gravel pack) be used to prevent sand inflow
(but perhaps at the cost of lower well productivity)? Would the ESP
run-life be acceptable if the sand is produced?
What operating practices/conditions are best?
¾ E.g., Should the wells be produced at a flowing bottomhole pressure
that is above the bubble point pressure to avoid failures associated
with free gas?

March 2009 Slide 53
Early Stages of a Feasibility Study
How ESP run-life affects the project economics?

Offshore Platform Example
¾ 20 Wells
¾ Average oil production per well: 1200 bopd
¾ Average intervention cost: 150 k (10 days @15k/day)
¾ Average equipment cost: 100 k
¾ Average workover & waiting time 60 days
Onshore Example
¾ 100 wells
¾ Average oil production per well: 200 bopd
¾ Average intervention cost: 20 k
¾ Average equipment cost: 50 k
¾ Average workover & waiting time: 7 days

March 2009 Slide 54
Total Workover Cost
vs. ESP Run Life (Offshore)
$700 40%

35%
$600
30%
$500
True 25%
Workover True
Costs Workover
($millions/ $400 Cost
year) (%Revenue)
20%
$300
15%
$200
10%
$100
5%
$0 0%
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960

March 2009 Slide 55
Total Workover Cost
vs. ESP Run Life (Onshore)
$40 6%

$35
5%
$30
4%
True
Workover $25 True
Costs Workover
($millions/ Cost
year) (%Revenue)
$20 3%
$15
2%
$10
1%
$5
$0 0%
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960

March 2009 Slide 56

Slide Presentation PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

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

Slide Presentation PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

ESP-Reliability Information and

Failure Tracking System

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

Total Cost Servicing Cost

Average Operating Period (days)

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

Improve ESP Run-Life in existing applications

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

Access a large set of hard ESP reliability data

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

ESP Operators joined efforts to pursue..

“… development of an industry wide Electric

“… ultimate goals ... [they] are two fold: (1) to

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

Standard terminology for classifying, recording and

*ISO 14224: Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries:

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

Participants Data Processing

Feedback from C-FER to the Participants:

Participants conduct Processed data

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

Our confidence in any analysis will always be

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

Select either chart

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

Survival Probability and Hazard

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

Output Options Include:

Enhanced Summary report

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

Note: Company IDs have been “masked” for confidentiality

BP Kuwait Oil Company Saudi Aramco

•25454 wells 60813

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

1. Standard terminology (PCP Failure Nomenclature Standard)

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

1. Standard terminology (PCP Failure Nomenclature Standard)

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

For some systems, the RL is not known:

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

Running Valid Last Date

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

1. Standard terminology (PCP Failure Nomenclature Standard)

A “Proportional-Hazard-Model” based on data in

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

Field A Field B Field C

Low R-L High R-L

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

Based on Date Installed, MTTF shows continuous improvement

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009

ESP-RIFTS Overview March 2009