Artificial Water Lift Methods for Accelerated Gas Production

ARTIFICIAL WATER LIFT AT STATFJORD
A case study of offshore artificial lift methods
Pl Jtun Pedersen
Trondheim June 2007
Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord
NTNU, June 2007
Preface
The work presented in this Diploma thesis was conducted in the 10th semester of the Petroleum Engineering studies at NTNU. It was written at the Department of Petroleum Engineering and Applied Geophysics, spring 2007. The thesis is 144 pages, and was delivered the 13th of June 2007. The work presented was prepared by the author in collaboration with Statoil ASA, and with Professor Jn Steinar Gumundsson as academic advisor.
I would like to express my gratitude to Professor Jn Steinar Gumundsson for guidance and advice throughout the thesis work. Also, I am very grateful for all the help I have received from Statoil ASA, by Bodil Fjreide Smme and Jess Milter.
Finally, I would like to thank Jarle Christensen at Weatherford Norge AS, and Andrew Henderson at Baker Hughes CENTRILIFT, for help and support.
_________________
Pl Jtun Pedersen
NTNU, June 2007
Abstract
As the Statfjord field approaches the limit for maximum oil recovery, the field is to be converted from producing oil to producing gas. In order to enhance the gas production, gas trapped in the residual reservoir oil is to be released and produced by reducing the reservoir pressure significantly. To accelerate the pressure drawdown, pumping of deep water is to be conducted. In this thesis three offshore artificial lift methods are evaluated for this task. These are ESP, Jet Pumping and Gas Lift.
Overall power efficiencies for the artificial lift methods are established. It was found that the ESP has the highest overall power efficiency for the larger part of the depressurization period. The reported overall power efficiency for ESP is about 44% for the larger part of the project phase, while it is about 25% for Jet Pumping. As the reservoir pressure declines very fast during the early project phase, Gas Lift was found unsuitable as an artificial water-lift method for the majority of the depressurization period.
Opex and Capex were estimated for ESP and Jet Pumping. The large required number of well interventions and pump replacements results in very high total expenses for ESP. Compared to Jet Pumping, ESP is estimated to be about twice as expensive. The total discounted project costs for 10 years are estimated to about 1 billion NOK for Jet Pumping and about 2 billion NOK for ESP. Hence, although ESP is the most energy efficient alternative, Jet Pumping is found to be the best economical solution. However, from an environmental point of view, ESP is the best suited alternative, due to the highest energy efficiency.
ii
NTNU, June 2007
Table of contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1 2. Artificial Lift Literature Survey ............................................................................................. 2 2.1 When is artificial lift required .......................................................................................... 2 2.2 Comparison of offshore-applicable artificial lift methods ............................................... 3 2.3 Jet Pump principles .......................................................................................................... 4 2.4 Gas lift principles ............................................................................................................. 5 2.5 ESP principles .................................................................................................................. 5 3. The Statfjord Field ................................................................................................................. 7 3.1 Field overview .................................................................................................................. 7 3.2 Presentation of the planned re-development of Statfjord ................................................. 9 3.3 Pumping of water to accelerate pressure drawdown ...................................................... 10 4. Case Description .................................................................................................................. 12 5. Application of Jet Pump ....................................................................................................... 14 5.1 Presentation of Jet pump model ..................................................................................... 14 5.2 Jet Pump performance .................................................................................................... 17 5.2.1 Main factors to control pump performance ............................................................. 17 5.2.2 Jet Pump sizing........................................................................................................ 17 5.3 Model calculations ......................................................................................................... 20 5.4 Evaluation of results ....................................................................................................... 22 6. Application of Gas Lift ........................................................................................................ 24 6.1 Presentation of Gas lift model ........................................................................................ 24 6.2 Gas lift performance ....................................................................................................... 25 6.2.1 Main factors to control gas lift performance ........................................................... 25 6.2.2 Gas lift design.......................................................................................................... 29 6.3 Model calculations ......................................................................................................... 33 6.4 Evaluation of results ....................................................................................................... 36 7. Application of Electrical Submersible Pump ....................................................................... 38 7.1 Presentation of ESP model ............................................................................................. 38 7.2 ESP performance ............................................................................................................ 41 7.2.1 Main factors to control pump performance ............................................................. 41 iii
NTNU, June 2007
7.2.2 ESP sizing ............................................................................................................... 41 7.3 Model calculations ......................................................................................................... 42 7.4 Evaluation of results ....................................................................................................... 45 8. Artificial Lift Capex Estimates for Statfjord ........................................................................ 47 8.1 Capex estimates using Jet Pump .................................................................................... 47 8.2 Capex estimates using Gas Lift ...................................................................................... 48 8.3 Capex estimates using ESP ............................................................................................ 48 9. Artificial Lift Opex Estimates for Statfjord ......................................................................... 50 9.1 Opex estimates using Jet Pump ...................................................................................... 50 9.2 Opex estimates using Gas Lift........................................................................................ 51 9.3 Opex estimates using ESP .............................................................................................. 51 10. Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 53 11. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 56 12. References .......................................................................................................................... 58 Tables ....................................................................................................................................... 60 Figures ...................................................................................................................................... 77 Appendixes ............................................................................................................................. 124 Appendix A Jet Pump Calculations ................................................................................ 124 Appendix B.1 Gas Lift calculations, Case A .................................................................. 134 Appendix B.2 Gas Lift calculations, Case B ................................................................... 136 Appendix B.3 Gas Lift calculations, Case C ................................................................... 137 Appendix C ESP Calculations......................................................................................... 139
iv
NTNU, June 2007
1. Introduction
As the Statfjord field approaches the limit for maximum oil recovery, a new plan for petroleum production has been laid. The field is to be converted from mainly producing oil to mainly produce gas. Gas production is expected to last until, at least, year 2020.
In order to enhance the gas production, the gas trapped in the residual reservoir oil is to be released and produced. To accomplish this, the reservoir pressure has to be reduced significantly. Drawing the reservoir pressure below the bubble point pressure of the oil will proportionally increase the release of dissolved gas from the residual oil.
To accelerate pressure drawdown, pumping of deep water is to be conducted. This water is mainly aquifer water, but also water originally injected as injection water for pressure support. The pumping is planned conducted from two formations, where the Brent Group is the most important in regards to number of wells and total production of water.
For successful accomplishment of this operation, the most suitable artificial lift has to be selected. According to the literature, there are three offshore applicable artificial lift systems available. These are Jet Pumping, Gas Lift and ESP.
In this master thesis the three above artificial lift methods are to be evaluated as petroleum production techniques for water lift. Calculations (sizing) are to be carried out for optimal design for the three methods, including relevant flow rates, pressures, temperatures and power requirements. Overall pumping efficiencies are to be reported and plotted against operational costs (Opex). Information about costs (Opex and Capex) is to be gathered, but emphasis is to be placed on obtaining wide-ranging information about the regularity of the three lift methods as well as obtaining exact purchase prices for the pump systems.
The thesis starts with a literature review of artificial lift and an overview and presentation of the Statfjord field. In Chapter 5, 6 and 7 sizing and calculation of power requirements and efficiencies are conducted. Chapters 8 and 9 contain estimates of Capex and Opex, while the final Chapters, 10 and 11, contain the discussion and conclusion, respectively.
NTNU, June 2007
2. Artificial Lift 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. (Jahn et al., 1998)
NTNU, June 2007
2.2 Comparison of offshore-applicable artificial lift methods

Referring to the book Hydrocarbon exploration and production (Jahn et al., 1998) and Figure 1, there are three artificial lift methods considered feasible for offshore installations. These are Jet Pump, Electrical Submersible Pump and Gas Lift. As attempted to illustrate later in this thesis, the selection of artificial lift system for a given case is a result of careful evaluation, finally based on operational and investment costs towards gained production.
The Jet 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 relatively high GOR. Also, the pump allows a relatively low pureness of the power fluid. Other great advantages of the Jet Pump 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 Jet Pumps are adaptable to all existing hydraulic pump bottomhole assemblies, can handle free gas and are applicable offshore.
However, using a Jet Pump as the artificial lift solution will also bring disadvantages. First and foremost, it is a relatively inefficient lift method. As seen in Figure 1, the hydraulic efficiency for the Jet Pump is considerable lower than for the ESP. The Jet Pump 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 Electrical Submersible Pump has, relatively to the two other artificial lift methods presented here, a high hydraulic efficiency. They are available in a broad range of sizes to accommodate most types of well conditions and completions. Lifting costs for high volumes are generally very low and the pumps are simple to operate.
But, use of Electrical Submersible Pumps has its disadvantages. The lifetime of these pumps are difficult to estimate, which is an important factor when considering number of well interventions and making Opex-estimates. It is also expensive to change equipment to match 3
NTNU, June 2007
declining well capability. ESP systems are only applicable with electrical power, and high voltages are necessary for ESP operation.
The last artificial lift method reviewed in this thesis is the Gas Lift. This is a widely used artificial lift method, and has multiple advantages towards the other lift systems. Gas Lift can handle large volume of solids with minor problems and lift gassy wells better than ESP and Jet Pump. Also, corrosion is not usually as adverse. Gas Lift can handle large volumes in high PI-wells and the power source can be remotely located.
However, Gas Lift has its drawbacks. It can not effectively produce deep wells to abandonment. Further, lift gas may not always be available and high pressure gas may create safety problems. Gas Lift also has problems lifting emulsions and viscous crudes. (Brown, 1982)
A power analysis of ESP towards Gas Lift was conducted at NTNU in 1990 by Espen Andreassen and presented in the diploma thesis Power Analysis of Offshore Artificial Lift Electrical Submersible Pumping and Gas Lift Compared. The author concludes that the two lifting methods will approach each other in performance for increasing water cut. In fields where both methods for artificial lift are technically feasible, this indicates that gas lifting is most advantageous at low to medium water cut, and that ESP tends to become equally advantageous at later stages in the field life.
It is referred to Figure 2 and Figure 3 for a list of relative advantages and disadvantages for the three mentioned artificial lift methods.
2.3 Jet Pump principles

Jet 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. (Jiao, 1988)
NTNU, June 2007
Figure 4 illustrates the principle. As seen in the Figure, when power fluid enters the nozzle, power fluid pressure declines while the velocity increases. The low pressure power fluid draws the production fluid into the throat. Power fluid and production fluid mix in the throat, and pressure starts to increase while velocity decreases. In the diffuser, the pressure of the mixed fluid increases significantly, while the velocity decreases in inverse ratio.
2.4 Gas lift principles

Gas lift is the continuous or intermittent injection of gas into the lower section of the production tubing to sustain, or increase, well potential. The injected gas is commingled with the produced fluids, thereby decreasing the flowing gradient, enabling wells to be operated at reduced flowing bottomhole pressure, hence increasing or sustaining production.
In gas lift, the additional work required to increase the production rate of the well is performed at the surface by a gas compressor or contained in a high pressure gas stream conveyed to the well in the form of gas pressure energy (Forero et al., 1993).
2.5 ESP principles

The electric submersible pump is an advanced multistage centrifugal pump, driven directly by a downhole electric motor. The ESPs output is more or less pre-determined by the type and number of pump stages. At significant additional cost, a variable speed drive can be installed to allow the motor speed, and thus the flow rate, to be changed. ESP design concerns itself primarily with choosing the right type of pump, the optimal number of stages, and the corresponding motor size to ensure a smooth functionality of the system. Changes in well productivity are hard to accommodate. The performance of the system is monitored primarily by the use of an ampere meter, measuring motor load.
A typical submersible pumping unit consists of an electric motor, a seal section, an intake section, a multistage centrifugal pump, an electrical cable, a surface-installed switchboard, a junction box, and transformers. Additional miscellaneous components include means of securing the cable alongside the tubing and wellhead supports.
NTNU, June 2007
The electric motor turns at a relatively constant speed, and the pump and the motor are directly coupled with a protector or seal section in between. Power is transmitted to the subsurface equipment through a three-conductor electric cable, which is strapped to the tubing. The fluid enters the pump at the intake section and is discharged into the tubing in which the unit is run into the well (Figure 5). (Jahn et al., 1998)
Figure 6 illustrates an example of ESP configuration, showing a typical ESP well installation, both downhole and topside.
NTNU, June 2007
3. The Statfjord Field

Following is a short presentation of the Statfjord Field, containing a general field overview as well as an introduction to the planned re-development of the field, converting the production and production facilities from oil to gas.
3.1 Field overview

The Statfjord field is the largest producing oil field inn Europe in terms of recoverable reserves. It is located northwest of Bergen, approximately 180 kilometres off the Norwegian coast, straddling the UK Norwegian line. The field is a part of the Tampen Area, and is approximately 27 km long and 4 km wide with a STOIIP (Stock Tank Oil Initially In Place) of approximately 1 billion Sm3 and an estimated ultimate recovery factor for oil of 68%.
The field is developed with three concrete platforms, where each platform is a combined drilling and production unit. In addition, the Statfjord satellite fields (Statfjord st, Statfjord Nord and Sygna) and the Snorre Field are connected to the Statfjord Field facilities. (Boge et al., 2005)
Geographical map for the Statfjord field and an overview illustration of the Tampen area can be found as Figure 7 and Figure 8.
Geology The Statfjord Field is located on a late Jurassic rotated fault block. The two main reservoir sandstone units, members of the Brent Group and Statfjord Formation, are divided by the Dunlin Group which mainly consists of shale.
The Brent Group is divided in Upper and Lower Brent. The Main Field which contains 85% of the STOIIP consists of a rotated fault block with the Brent Group and Statfjord Formation reservoirs. It has a dip of approximately 6-7 degrees towards west-northwest.
The East Flank consists of slump fault blocks generated by gravitational failure at the crest of the field. The structure and stratigraphy of the East Flank is complex, it is heavy faulted with internal faults and small scale structures making reservoir mapping challenging.
NTNU, June 2007
The communication from the Main Field to the East Flank is generally good, with some restrictions as one move to the east of the field. (Boge et al., 2005)
Figure 9 shows a stratigraphic column for the formations.
Production history Production on the Statfjord Field started in 1979, and the annual oil production plateau rate at 120 000 Sm3/day was reached in 1985. After eight years on plateau production, oil production started declining to the current oil production level, which is about 20 000 Sm3/day. About 635 million Sm3 of oil has been produced since production startup, and the remaining economic oil reserves with the current drainage strategy are estimated to 27 million Sm3. In addition to remaining oil volumes, substantial gas volumes exist in the reservoirs, either as gas dissolved in the remaining oil or as free gas injected as pressure maintenance. (Boge et al., 2005)
Current drainage strategy The current drainage strategy for the Statfjord Field is pressure maintenance by water and gas injection into the main reservoirs: the Brent Group and the Statfjord Formation.
The primary drainage strategy for the Brent Group has been down flank water injection. Plateau production was dominated by production from the Main Field followed by development of the more complex East Flank and drainage of sands with poorer reservoir quality after water breakthrough.
Upper Statfjord has been drained by miscible gas injection resulting in very high recovery. Since 1996, pressure in Upper Statfjord has been maintained by gas assisted updip water injection. Lower Statfjord is developed by downdip water injection assisted by limited WAG injection.
A high focus on keeping drilling costs and well interventions costs low have allowed for an aggressive drilling strategy and a high well intervention activity level, resulting in reduced field decline and improved recovery. The resent years, the annual activity level on the field has been as high as 15-20 sidetracks and approximately 50 well interventions. 8
NTNU, June 2007
With the current drainage strategy, the sales gas reserves are 74 GSm3, of which 68 GSm3 have already been exported. Without change in drainage strategy, gas export was expected to end late 2007. In addition to export, produced gas has been used for pressure maintenance, fuel and flare.
The current recovery factor of oil is about 65%, and the ultimate recovery is expected to be about 68%. With the current oil profile, operation of the field is expected to become marginal around 2010. By implementation of the new drainage strategy, presented in Chapter 3.2, the additional revenue from gas exports allows for extension of the production period until 20182020. (Boge et al., 2005)
3.2 Presentation of the planned re-development of Statfjord

The new production strategy is to convert the Statfjord field from mainly producing oil to mainly produce gas. This conversion requires depressurization of the reservoir to release the incremental solution gas from the residual oil. The change in drainage and production strategy, from pressure maintenance to depressurization, will require an extensive pressure reduction in both the Brent Group and the Statfjord Formation. Injection of water and gas is planned to be stopped in 2007, phased on each platform according to the planned shutdowns in 2007. Active depressurization is not planned for the Dunlin reservoir, as it has very limited potential.
It is referred to Figure 10 for an illustration of the depressurization process. From the Figure it can be seen that as reservoir pressure falls below bubble point pressure, gas will be released from the remaining oil. The gas will then migrate towards the crest, from where it will be produced.
Gas production from the Statfjord Formation will primarily be from existing, secondary gas caps, created as a result of gas injection. Most of this gas is currently trapped in the water flooded zone due to large amounts of water injected through production history. This gas will expand and become mobile as reservoir pressure drops.
NTNU, June 2007
During the first years of depressurization, the Statfjord Formation will provide the majority of the produced gas. The Brent Group will then gradually take over as main gas supplier when the reservoir pressure drops below bubble point pressure and gas is liberated from the oil in Brent. The Brent Group and Statfjord Formation have relatively similar initial GOR values; 180 and 157 Sm3/ Sm3, respectively. Initial bubble point pressure for oil in the Brent Group was 270 bar, while it was 200 bar in the Statfjord Formation. (Boge et al., 2005)
3.3 Pumping of water to accelerate pressure drawdown

To enable the depressurization of the two reservoir-formations, pumping of aquifer and injection water is to be conducted. Pressure maintenance has been applied throughout the fields life, using gas, water and WAG as injection methods. By reversing this injection process, pumping water out of the reservoir, the total reservoir pressure will decline. When reaching the bubble point pressure for the two reservoirs (200 bar and 270 bar for the Statfjord Formation and the Brent Group, respectively), gas will be liberated from the residual oil and migrate towards the top of the reservoir, allowing it to be produced by gas-lift wells as seen in the planned depressurization process shown in Figure 10. For this project, suitable downhole pumps have to be selected from a variety of different technologies and suppliers. Reviewed in this paper is the most relevant artificial lift methods for downhole offshore use today: Gas Lift, Electrical Submersible Pumps (ESP) and Jet Pumps. (Jahn et al., 1998, Boge et al., 2005)
Figure 11 illustrates the expected water production profile and reservoir pressure decline versus time for the Brent Group. The estimated reservoir pressure development is based on both water production from the aquifer wells as well as oil/gas/water production from the gas lifted wells on the top of the formation. An important note is that the reservoir pressure calculations are complex and the pressure profile difficult to pre-determine. Due to this fact, the reservoir pressure-trend assumptions may vary in accuracy.
The field operator has planned ten water production wells in the Brent Group. The wells are to be drilled sequential, running instant production start-up after well completion. 4 wells should be drilled and completed the first and second year, while the remaining two wells will be finished the following year. Accordingly, ten wells will be operative from approximately late 2012, and ideally produce continuous throughout the fields life. 10
NTNU, June 2007
Figure 11 shows a plot of the expected water production profile and reservoir pressure decline versus time for the Brent Group. The base-case data used for calculations in this thesis are extracted from this plot. Figure 11 is based on data supplied and approved by Statoil ASA.
11
NTNU, June 2007
4. Case Description
The main purpose of the calculations in the following Chapters is to establish comparable values for artificial lift efficiency.
A common measure for artificial lift efficiency is the hydraulic efficiency, which depends on the degree of hydraulic loss. Hydraulic loss relates to the construction of the pump or fan, and is caused by the friction between the fluid and the walls, acceleration and retardation of the fluid and the change of the fluid flow direction. In general, this can be a sufficient indicator for the artificial lift efficiency, but when comparing different artificial lift methods for a specific case, a more extensive efficiency (overall efficiency) should be used.
To establish a definition of the overall efficiency of artificial lift, one must establish a definition of the useful work that an artificial lift system performs. The definition used in this thesis is presented in the paper New and Expected Developments in Artificial Lift (Lea, J.F., Winkler H.W., 1994). The paper defines the artificial lift efficiency as output effect divided to input effect, mathematically expressed as:
(1)
Output effect is equal to the useful effect, which can be written as:
Useful effect =
(2)
where Q is the flowing production volume flow rate in Sm3/s and delta P is the pressure increase through the pump in Pascal. The input effect is the required effect of the topside pump/compressor/generator enabling the artificial lift system to deliver the given production. It is assumed that all three artificial lift systems have the same gas turbine generating the power demanded topside.
Calculations are conducted for three cases, Case A, Case B and Case C, representing the depressurization phase for the Brent group at an early, middle and late stage, respectively. Case A includes one well producing at 5000 Sm3/d, with a reservoir pressure at 250 bar. Case
12
NTNU, June 2007
B is the middle stage production (year 2015), with 10 wells producing at 3750 Sm3/d and a reservoir pressure at 100 bar. Finally, Case C is the late stage production (year 2020), with 10 wells producing at 2500 Sm3/d, with a reservoir pressure on 70 bar. Well and reservoir data are gathered from Statoil ASA, and can be found as Table 1, 2 and 3. The Tables consists of casing dimensions, pump setting depth, well pressures and temperatures, productivity index, production flow rates and fluid properties. The optimal tubing sizes for the different lift methods are determined in each Chapter.
The production wells are planned to be deviated wells. For simplicity, the wells are in this thesis assumed to be vertical, with the same TVD as the ones planned by the operator. This makes it easier to compare the different artificial lift methods and to establish and compare overall efficiencies.
Figure 12 illustrates one water producer on natural lift at various reservoir pressures (dead well). The Figure shows that the lower the natural reservoir drive, the higher the demand for artificial lift performance.
For tubing, valve and annulus flow and pressure drop calculations, the well performance program PROSPER is used. For these calculations, the program contains several correlations. In this thesis, the Beggs and Brill-correlation is selected for tubing and casing-tubing annular flow and pressure drop calculations. The correlation is presented in the paper A study of Two-Phase Flow in Inclined Pipes, published in the Journal of Petroleum Technology in 1973. For the correlation used to calculate pressure drop and flow through vales and orifices it is referred to Chapter 6.1. PROSPER is also used for gas lift design, generating performance curves and control calculations. Also, the process simulator HYSYS is used for compressor-effect calculations in Chapter 6.
The following Chapters contain the application of the three artificial lift systems for Case A, B and C. Calculation results are briefly discussed individually in each Chapter, and compared altogether in the discussion part at the end of the thesis.
13
NTNU, June 2007
5. Application of Jet Pump

5.1 Presentation of Jet pump model
The model selected for the Jet Pump calculations is originally presented in the thesis Performance Model for Hydraulic Jet Pumping of Two-Phase Fluids by Baohua Jiao 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 Jet Pumps When Handling a Gas-Liquid Mixture from 1985. The model will hereafter be called the Tulsa model. Following is a short presentation of the model and its main principles. For further review and calculation examples of the model it is referred to the project Review and Application of the Tulsa Liquid Jet Pump Model from 2006 by the author of this thesis.
For the model derivation in its entirety it is referred to Appendix A in the above mentioned project.
The main purpose of the model is to predict pressure recovery, N, as a function of dimensionless mass flow ratio, M.
The dimensionless pressure recovery, N, is the pressure increase over the pump divided by the pressure difference between the drive fluid and the pump discharge. Mathematically it is defined as follows:
Pd Pp
Pi , Pd
(3)
where Pd is the pump discharge pressure in bar, Pi is the pump intake pressure in bar and Pp is the power fluid pressure in bar.
The dimensionless mass flow ratio, M, between the suction (producing) fluid and the power fluid is defined as:
mint ake mnozzle
Qi Qp
Qi , Qp
14
NTNU, June 2007
for one phase flow, assuming equal density for the two fluids, where mintake is the mass flow rate through pump intake in kg/s, mnozzle is the mass flow rate through the nozzle exit in kg/s, Qi is the volume flow rate at pump intake in Sm3/s, Qp is the volume flow rate of power fluid through pump in Sm3/s and is the liquid density in kg/Sm3.
Extended to include gas, the mass flow ratio can be expressed as:
Qi
Qia 1.227 , Qp
(4)
where Qi and Qp are the same as defined for equation (3). The numerator in the above equation describes the total producing fluid mass flow. This includes both liquid and gas, where the term 1.227 Qia represents the gas mass flow. For further description and derivation of the term, it is referred to Appendix A of Review and Application of the Tulsa Liquid Jet Pump Model (Pedersen, P.J., 2006).
The product of the two parameters N and M is the ratio of the transferred useful power to consumed input power. Explained mathematically:
Efficiency
N M
(5)
The model uses a functional form of N
f (M ) that is based on work by Cunningham (1974),
who developed this function on mass energy conservation principles. Simplifying the typing of this function, two component elements are defined:
2R
(1 2 R )( M 2 R 2 ) /(1 R ) 2
R 2 (1 M ) 2 ,
where R is the ratio of the nozzle to throat area and M is the mass flow ratio.
Referring to Appendix A in the mentioned project by Pedersen (2006), it is shown that N can be written: 15
NTNU, June 2007
B (1 K td )C , (1 K n ) B (1 K td )C
(6)
where K n and K td are the dimensionless pressure-loss coefficients for the nozzle and throatdiffuser, respectively.
In the above expression of N, the importance of the loss parameters is obvious. The nozzle loss parameter, K n , is in the Tulsa model set to 0.04. This value was estimated in the Tulsa thesis from optimization based on high pressure data.
K td is a combination of the loss parameter for the throat K t and the diffuser K d ,
respectively. The equation for K td 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 R, R p 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:
K td
0.1 (10.88 * 10 3 )( R p )
2.33
( AWR ) 0.63 R 0.33
(7)
where R is the ratio of the nozzle to throat area, R p 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.
16
NTNU, June 2007
5.2 Jet Pump performance

5.2.1 Main factors to control pump performance
For a pump with a given nozzle/throat relation, one of the main factors to control the Jet Pump performance is the injection rate of the power fluid. As illustrated in Figure 13, an increase in the injection flow rate, at fixed injection pressure, leads to higher pump discharge pressure and therefore higher production flow rate.
Also, the pressure of the injected power fluid can be varied. Figure 14 shows performance curves for different injection pressures, keeping the injection flow rate constant. As shown, the injection pressure is also an important factor when considering Jet Pump performance.
Tubing size has little or no influence on the Jet Pump performance, as long as the pump physically fits in the tubing and the casing-tubing annulus is large enough to conduct the total returning fluid flow.
The nozzle/throat relation and its influence on pump performance are discussed in the following Chapter. For further description of factors to control pump performance, especially when producing free gas, it is referred to the thesis Performance model for hydraulic jet pumping of two phase fluids (Jiao, 1988) and Chapter 4 of the earlier mentioned project (Pedersen, P.J., 2006) by the author of this thesis.
5.2.2 Jet Pump sizing

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 Jet Pump sizing. The nozzle/throat relation Jet 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 Jet Pumps have made a wide range of nozzles and throats available (Figure 15), where the
17
NTNU, June 2007
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 16. 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, 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. 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 16).
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 Jet Pumping Oil Wells by Petrie et.al (1983):
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 et al., 1983, Allan et al., 1989)
18
NTNU, June 2007
Cavitation and sizing of throat entrance area When sizing a hydraulic Jet Pump for multiphase flow, one of the most important factors is to avoid cavitation.
Cavitation can damage the Jet 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 17). This collapse of vapour bubbles may cause erosion known as cavitation damage and will decrease the jet pump performance.
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 et al., 1988, Christ, Petrie, 1989, Petrie et al., 1983)
A step-by-step guide for sizing hydraulic Jet Pumps is presented in the Tulsa thesis (Jiao, 1988). This procedure was converted from field to SI-units in the paper Review and Application of the Tulsa Liquid Jet Pump Model (Pedersen, P.J, 2006). In the following Chapter, the SI-edition of this calculation procedure is used.
19
NTNU, June 2007
5.3 Model calculations

Jet Pump model calculations have been conducted for three cases: 1 well producing at 5000 Sm3/d (Case A) and 10 wells producing at 3750 Sm3/d (Case B) and 2500 Sm3/d (Case C) each, according to the drawdown plan presented in Figure 11. The calculations are enclosed as Appendix A. For power fluid, processed water with a gravity of 1000 kg/Sm3 is chosen. The pump supplier is selected to be Kobe (Figure 15), and the casing-tubing annulus is selected as the return conduit. For economic and practical purposes, a free Jet Pump is chosen. This is further discussed in Chapter 9.2.
Inflow and tubing performance curves for the Jet Pump cases are shown in Figure 18, Figure 19 and Figure 20, representing one well each, flowing at 5000 Sm3/d, 3750 Sm3/d and 2500 Sm3/d respectively. Data tables for the PROSPER-generated curves are enclosed as Table 7, 8 and 9.
The calculations in Appendix A were performed using different nozzle/throat combinations. The efficiency/power relations for the various combinations are found in Figure 21, Figure 22 and Figure 23. The calculations presented here represent the optimal combinations found, 16E for Case A, 16E for Case B and 19B for Case C. These combinations are marked in the mentioned Figures. Table 1, 2, 3 contains well data for the three cases.
The Jet Pump efficiency calculated in Appendix A is the total hydraulic efficiency. For comparison, the efficiency calculation method introduced in Chapter 4 is also applied, using Equation (1) and (2):
As defined in Chapter 4, useful effect is written as: Useful effect = where ,
is the pressure increase over the pump.
20
Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Case A:
NTNU, June 2007
The calculations in Appendix A for Case A gave a hydraulic efficiency of 33.1 % and a topside power requirement on 1820 kW.
The discharge pressure is calculated to be 326 bar (step 16 in the Case A calculations, Appendix A). Pump intake pressure is 230 bar (step 23). Delta P for the given production is ~ 96 bar.
Overall Jet Pump efficiency:
The results are further discussed in the next Chapter.
Case B:
Referring to Appendix A, Case B calculations gave a hydraulic efficiency of 27.4 % and a topside power requirement on 4006 kW per well.
As for Case A, the efficiency calculation method introduced in Chapter 4 is also applied, using Equation (1) and (2).
The discharge pressure is calculated to be 324 bar (step 16 in the Case B calculations, Appendix A). Pump intake pressure is 85 bar (step 23). Delta P for the given production is ~ 239 bar.
The total required input effect for all 10 wells are: 4006 kW x 10 = 40.06 MW 21
NTNU, June 2007
Results further discussed in next Chapter.
Case C: Case C calculations gave a hydraulic efficiency of 28.8 % and a topside power requirement on 3177 kW per well.
As for Case A and B, the efficiency calculation method introduced in Chapter 4 is also applied, using Equation (1) and (2).
The discharge pressure is calculated to be 326 bar (step 16 in the Case C calculations, Appendix A). Pump intake pressure is 60 bar (step 23). Delta P for the given production is ~ 266 bar.
The total required input effect for all 10 wells are: 3177 kW x 10 = 31.77 MW Results further discussed in next Chapter.
5.4 Evaluation of results

Intuitively, one should believe that the overall efficiency of a Jet Pump lift system was somewhat lower than the hydraulic efficiency of the Jet Pump itself. In the calculations from the previous Chapter, this is proven to be correct. The combined hydraulic efficiency of the Jet Pump and surface Power Fluid Pump was, for all three cases, higher than for the overall efficiency.
The difference between hydraulic efficiency and overall efficiency is 2.6% for Case A, calculating a hydraulic efficiency on 33.1% and an overall efficiency on 30.5%. For Case B, the difference is 1.5%, calculating 27.4% and 25.9% for hydraulic and overall efficiency,
22
NTNU, June 2007
respectively. For Case C, the calculated difference between the two efficiency measures is 4.6%. The hydraulic efficiency is 28.8% while the overall efficiency is 24.2%. The relatively large difference for Case C is probably due to a fairly high friction pressure loss in the power fluid tubing, which affects the overall efficiency.
Comparing the hydraulic efficiency calculations for Jet Pump (Appendix A) with the typical Jet Pump hydraulic efficiency range presented in Chapter 2.2 (Figure 1), it is seen that the results for all three cases falls within the expected efficiency range. This indicates that the calculations and results for the Jet Pump option should be fairly reasonable.
PROSPER was used to generate performance curves for the cases using Jet Pump. Unfortunately, none of the nozzle/throat combinations found in PROSPER were equal to the ones selected in Chapter 5.3. The closest values to the nozzle/throat configuration used here were selected in PROSPER, and some variables were adjusted so that the performance curves should represent the Jet Pump calculations for Case A, B and C. Figure 18 represents Case A for Jet Pump, one well flowing at 5000 Sm3/d. Figure 19 represents Case B for Jet Pump, one well flowing at 3750 Sm3/d, and finally Figure 20 represents Case C, one well flowing at 2500 Sm3/d.
Referring to the above mentioned Figures, the pump discharge pressure curve is represented by the black line, while the blue line is the IPR curve and the red line represents the tubing intake pressure curve.
23
NTNU, June 2007
6. Application of Gas Lift

6.1 Presentation of Gas lift model
The main task of a gas lift system is to reduce the weight of the producing fluid column. Gas is less dense than the normal production fluids, accordingly will injection of gas in the production tubing result in a lowering of density in the total producing fluid. Gas lift design includes pressure drop calculations for annulus, tubing and valves. Another important aspect of gas lift design is to estimate the effect and dimensions of the surface compressors required to deliver the gas lift-gas at the wellhead with a given casing pressure. The efficiency of the total gas lift is mainly depending on the efficiency of the topside process-systems, the composition of the lift-gas, the valve-setting, the casing/tubing size, the density of the producing fluid and the pressure conditions in the well.
The method for calculating the total efficiency of a gas lift system used in Chapter 6.3 is the same as presented in Chapter 4, represented by equation (1) and (2). For gas lift, the paper New and Expected Developments in Artificial Lift (Lea, J.F., Winkler, H.W, 1994) defines the useful effect (work/time) as , where delta P is equal to the pressure at
the perforations with no gas lift system minus the pressure at the perforations with a gas lift system. The denominator of the gas lift efficiency equation will be the required effect of the surface gas compressor.
For pressure loss and flow calculations, PROSPER was used. As for the other artificial lift calculations, the Beggs and Brill-correlation (Beggs, H.D., Brill, J.P., 1973) is used for computing tubing and casing-tubing annulus pressure loss. For flow through valves and orifices, the program uses the Thornhill-Craver-model. The model is presented in the paper Report on the Calibration of Positive Flow Beans as Manufactured by Thornhill-Craver Company Inc. by Cook, H.L. and Dotterweich, F.H. from 1946.
The equation form of this flow-behaviour model can be written as:
(8)
24
NTNU, June 2007
where qgi is the volumetric flow rate of gas through the orifice given in Mscf/D, Cd is an experimental determined discharge coefficient, Ap is the port area in square inches, Piod describes the gas orifice injection pressure in psig, k is the ratio of specific heats (Cp/Cv), r is the pressure ratio between production pressure and injection pressure in psig, Sg is the specific gravity of the injected gas, and Tv is the temperature of the injection gas at the orifice. For the compressor calculations, adiabatic compression is assumed. The effect calculations are based on the equation for the adiabatic compression:
(9)
where W is work in J/mole, p1 is the inlet pressure in Pa, p2 is the discharge pressure in Pa, v1 is an expression for gas-volume/mole with the units m3/mole and k is the ratio of specific heats (Cp/Cv). For the compression effect the following equation was used:
(10)
where P is effect in J/s (Watt), m is mass flow in kg/s and M is kg/mole.
For the compressor-calculations, the process engineering program HYSYS was used as well as manual calculations. HYSYS uses, in addition to the equations presented above, an adiabatic efficiency of 85% (user input).
6.2 Gas lift performance

6.2.1 Main factors to control gas lift performance
Many factors influence the total gas lift performance and have to be considered when sizing and designing a gas lift system in order to match system performance to reservoir deliverability. It is of vital importance that the designer has a thorough understanding of the different physical processes involved, and how they interact. In Artificial Lift Manual Part 2A Gas Lift Design Guide (Forero et al., 1993), gas lift performance and design
25
NTNU, June 2007
considerations are divided into three component parts: the reservoir, the well and the surface facilities:
Reservoir performance Reservoir performance (drive mechanism and fluid properties), usually represent the largest uncertainty associated with artificial lift design. Such parameters will change with time, hence reliable forecast are required to assess the effect on artificial lift performance/selection, particularly the timing of installation. A great advantage of gas lift in this case is that the downhole equipment can be installed with the original completion at very minor additional cost, obviating the need for later well intervention.
The quantity of associated gas produced in the wellbore is a function of a number of factors (drawdown, bubble point pressure and natural GLR), and is a significant parameter in gas lift system design. The determination of the amount of free gas likely to be produced is crucial to determine the flowing-pressure gradient which is directly related to the optimum gas injection volume. Production of free gas will affect the total density of the fluid column. Density will increase as the light components of the oil/gas solution are produced as free gas. Following, this will enhance the total injection volume of gas required.
Another important aspect of gas lift performance is the depth of the injection gas. In general, optimum lift conditions are achieved when gas is injected at the bottom of the production conduit. In this way the entire vertical fluid column is less dense, which yields the lowest possible flowing bottomhole pressure, and therefore the maximum drawdown and production rate. (Forero et al., 1993)
Figure 24 illustrates the effect of gas injection on the flowing pressure gradient. Referring to the Figure, the blue line represents the flowing gradient, and the red line represents the injection gas gradient. The interception point for the lines give the maximum depth of injection for the given gas injection pressure (casing pressure). Injection depth and valve spacing is further discussed in Chapter 6.2.2.
26
Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Well performance
NTNU, June 2007
In high PI wells, where small changes in drawdown have a large effect on production, significant gains can be realised by maximizing lift-gas injection depth, the converse is also true however for low PI wells.
Naturally, inflow performance has a great influence on the total gas lift performance, as the natural flowing bottomhole pressure decides the amount and pressure necessary for the injection gas. This is illustrated in Figure 25, where gas lift injection pressure and injection flow rate is kept constant while the reservoir pressure decline. As illustrated, the well will stop flowing as the reservoir pressure falls below a minimum pressure required for the well to flow.
For the vertical lift performance during gas lift, tubing size is a very important factor. Installing a too small tubing will result in excessive friction losses. However, a too large tubing will cause unstable flow. This can only be corrected (partially) by increased volumes of lift-gas.
Figure 26 shows an example of gas-lift performance curves representing different tubing sizes. All other variables are fixed. The Figure shows that a small tubing diameter results in a low production flow rate, which is a consequence of high friction pressure loss in the production tubing. It is shown that by increasing the tubing diameter, the production flow rate will increased.
Low wellhead back pressure is also of prime importance, as it allows increased drawdown and enhances the efficiency of the gas lift. A high back pressure also results in closer valve spacing and shallower injection. Figure 27 illustrates the influence of the required wellhead pressure. The Figure contains five different tubing intake curves, representing wellhead back pressures from 5 to 30 bara. Referring to the Figure, it is obvious that the wellhead pressure has a large influence on the gas lift performance, as lower wellhead pressure leads to lower bottomhole pressure required for a given production flow rate, or alternatively, a higher production flow rate at the same bottomhole pressure.
Another factor of consideration is emulsions. Emulsions are common in gas lift operations, and can result in a significant increase in producing fluid viscosity, which will affect the lift 27
NTNU, June 2007
performance considerable. Experience shows that emulsions are formed at the point of gas injection, and that emulsions behaviour can vary greatly from well to well. Usually, emulsions can be successfully eliminated, or at least considerably reduced by adding de-emulsifiers to the gas lift stream. (Forero et al., 1993)
Surface facilities Lift-gas volume and pressure have a vital influence on the gas lift performance. Lift-gas volume is the total lift-gas requirement for a field or group of wells, determined by adding individual well requirements. It is possible to inject too much gas into an individual well. Production will increase as a function of lift-gas volume until a point of maximum production is reached. Adding further quantities of gas beyond this point will decrease productivity as a result of the dominance of friction pressure.
Figure 28 shows an example of a Gas Lift performance curve. The x-axis represents injected GLR and the y-axis represents produced liquid. As seen, the plotted line has a point of maximum injection. Increasing gas injection beyond this point will clearly result in a decrease in productivity.
Keeping the injection pressure as high as possible will lead to higher production rates due to increased pressure drawdown as a result of being able to inject deeper. In general, if lifting takes place as deep as possible, less gas volume is required. Hence, from a power point of view it is more efficient to inject deep with a low IGLR (Injection Gas Liquid Ratio), than shallow with a high IGLR. The obvious disadvantage associated with high injection pressure is the need for more costly and high pressure rated equipment. However, in many cases, gas compression will be installed anyhow to facilitate gas export or re-injection. In these cases, the choice of lift pressure may be determined by other requirements. (Forero et al., 1993)
It is referred to Figure 29 for illustration of injection pressure influence on gas lift performance. The plot is made by varying the casing pressure while keeping the other variables fixed. The Figure shows that by increasing the injection pressure, production flow rate will increase.
The quality of the injected lift-gas is also an important factor regarding gas lift design and capacity. A rich (heavy) gas provides higher downhole pressure, and therefore allows a deeper 28
NTNU, June 2007
injection depth for a given surface injection pressure compared to a less dense gas. On the other hand, lower volumes of lighter gas at a higher injection pressure may actually require less compression effect per unit volume of fluid produced. A possible problem with injecting rich gas is that heavier fractions may go back into solution with the produced fluid (oil).
Lift-gas supply must also be free from solids, when it passes through very small areas in gas lift valves which can be easily plugged. Rust, salt, scale or chemical residue should be prevented from accumulating in the system. Gas containing significant quantities of hydrogen sulphide (H2S) should also be avoided as it can cause severe operational problems such as corrosion, excessive compressor maintenance and fuel contamination.
The selection of compressor will naturally have a vital influence on the earlier mentioned liftgas pressure and compression capacity for the lift-gas volume flow. The main issue with compressor selection normally results from the disparity between the discharge pressure for well kick-off, and that required for continuous operation at the deepest injection point. This will be further highlighted in the next Chapter. (Forero et al., 1993)
6.2.2 Gas lift design

Gas lift system design is a complex and difficult event. In order to make a good gas lift design, multiple design factors must be taken into consideration, as presented in the previous Chapter. Gas lift design is a wide field, and a detailed description of a total gas lift system design is beyond the scope of this master thesis. For further and more detailed description of the art of gas lift design it is referred to the literature, and more specific the Artificial Lift Manual Part 2A Gas Lift Design Guide (Forero et al., 1993).
For the calculations in Chapter 6.3, PROSPER is used to calculate gas lift performance and deliverability together with making gas lift string and valve design. Following is a presentation of the various steps and elements of gas-lift string and valve design:
For the string-design, adding equipment and increasing complexity of the string will also increase the chance that failure of one element will lead to shut-in and/or the need for well intervention. Having this in mind, the ideal situation is to provide sufficient topside gas pressure to enable gas injection at the optimum depth, so that no gas unloading valves are 29
NTNU, June 2007
required. However, since the surface pressure requirements decrease when the well is on full gas lift, this solution is generally too costly with regard to compression facilities, unless these are already available. A lower gas injection pressure should decrease the cost of the surface facilities although it will increase the number of gas lift valves required.
To develop the best possible design, it is necessary to establish the relationship between the various parameters relevant to the design and economics of the project. Main parameters are:
Well IPR and reservoir fluid properties. Optimum or attainable GLR. Diameter and length of the injection and production conduits. Attainable injection depth and corresponding production flow rate. Available gas injection volume. Maximum and operating gas injection pressures.
The gas lift string must be designed for the specific type of completion and gas lift type selected. In this respect, the design can be either for Production Pressure Operated valves (PPO) or for Injection Pressure Operated valves (IPO). The valves are used to control the flow of lift- gas into the production tubing conduit. The gas lift valve is located in the gas lift mandrel, which also provides communication with the lift gas supply in the tubing annulus. Operation of the gas lift valve is determined by preset opening and closing pressures in the tubing or annulus, depending on the specific application. An illustration of the PPO and IPO valves are found as Figure 30.
For the Production Pressure Operated valves, the gas injection at surface is kept constant since the valve operation is controlled by the produced fluid pressure. This allows maximum utilisation of the available pressure to reach the deepest possible injection level. This requires good knowledge of the produced fluid pressure at various valve levels in the well to enable correct valve setting and to achieve well stability.
For the Injection Pressure Operated valves, surface gas injection is decreased in steps to operate the gas lift valves. This allows the unloading valves to be independent of the production pressure at the expense of some injection depth.
30
NTNU, June 2007
The selection of the most suitable valve-type depends therefore on the specific well conditions and on the available injection gas rate and pressure.
Following is a short introduction to the valve and mandrel spacing technique used by PROSPER. The program uses two different design techniques (PPO or IPO-configured strings), dependent on the user input:
For mandrel spacing with IPO (Casing sensitive) valves, given the design rate and GLR injected, a pressure traverse is calculated from the wellhead and downwards, using the gas lifted flowing gradient. The injection depth is the depth at which the flowing tubing pressure equals the casing pressure gradient minus the design pressure loss across the orifice or the maximum injection depth (packer depth), whichever is the shallower. This step establishes the flowing tubing pressure gradient to be used for valve spacing.
The shallowest unloading valve is placed at the depth which balances the tubing load fluid pressure with the casing pressure (minus a 3.45 bar safety margin) at that depth. Further unloading valves are placed by traversing down between the load fluid pressure gradient and the gas lifted tubing pressure gradient lines (calculated for the design gas lifted production rate).
Valves are placed deeper and deeper, until the inter-valve spacing equals the pre-set minimum, or the maximum injection depth has been reached. Once the first pass design is complete, PROSPER re-calculates the flowing gradient tubing using the current operating valve depth. For casing sensitive valves, the valve depths are re-calculated to allow for the casing pressure drop to close valves. The process is repeated until the valve depths no longer change. PROSPER reduces the design rate if necessary and repeats the spacing exercise.
PPO (Tubing sensitive) valves operate with a constant gas injection pressure and rely on increasing tubing pressure as the well unloads to close the unloading valve and transfer injection to lower valves. To prepare a design for tubing sensitive valves, the required input is the same as for Casing Sensitive valves except that instead of entering the casing pressure drop to close valves, the percentage Pcasing - Pwellhead to close valves is required.
31
NTNU, June 2007
The injection point is found as for casing sensitive valves by finding the intersection of the minimum tubing gradient line and the casing pressure gradient (minus a 3.45 bar safety margin). The first unloading valve is spaced as for the casing sensitive case.
Intermediate unloading valves are spaced by traversing down using the load fluid gradient from the transfer pressure to intersect the casing pressure gradient for the operating injection pressure. The transfer pressure (tubing pressure at which the unloading valve closes) is calculated using the percent value of Pcasing - Pwellhead as follows:
The surface pressure corresponding to the specified % difference between the operating tubing and casing pressures is calculated. A straight line is extended from this point to intersect the tubing pressure at the injection point. The valve transfer pressure is defined at any depth by this line.
A small value of % difference results in transfer pressures close to the flowing tubing gradient. While this results in a design with few unloading valves, any small increase in flowing tubing pressure may cause unloading valves to re-open.
A larger value of % Pcasing - Pwellhead will increase the transfer pressure further away from the flowing tubing gradient. This provides a greater safety margin against multi-point injection, but requires the unloading valves to be spaced more closely. Selecting transfer pressures using only the % Pcasing - Pwellhead straight line can result in shallow valves having a too conservative transfer pressures, and the deeper valves may transfer too close to the tubing gradient line. PROSPER adjusts the design transfer pressures so that valves are spaced efficiently while at the same time ensuring a good safety margin against multipoint injection. (Forero et al., 1993, PROSPER Help Manual)
Figure 31 illustrates mandrel spacing for PPO-valves. The Figure shows how the valve setting depths are decided, using the transfer pressure line, the unloading fluid gradient and the casing gradient.
32
NTNU, June 2007

Gas Lift model calculations have been tried conducted for all three cases: 1 well producing at 5000 Sm3/d (Case A) and 10 wells producing at 3750 Sm3/d and 2500 Sm3/d each (Case B and C), according to the drawdown plan presented in Figure 11.
For Case A: The gas composition for the lift-gas is given in Table 11, and the envelope for the gas is plotted in Figure 32 (based on the values for year 2009, Table 11). Maximum available volume flow rate of lift-gas per well is 200 MSm3/d, and maximum casing pressure (lift-gas pressure at wellhead) is set to 180 bar. (Statoil ASA)
As pointed out in Chapter 6.2.1, the size of the production tubing affects the gas lift performance significantly. Calculations were conducted for various tubing sizes, and the tubing-size considered optimal was 6.9 ID and 7.625 OD.
A gas lift string design was performed using PROSPER, in accordance with the design methods and parameters presented in Chapter 6.2.2. Two different designs are presented. One using IPO valves and one using PPO valves. The input parameters and selections are presented in Table 12 and 13 respectively, and the two gas lift designs are illustrated in Figure 33 (IPO) and Figure 34 (PPO).
As highlighted in the previous Chapter, the PPO option gives deeper injection but more mandrels and valves required, as seen in Figure 34. The injection pressure is kept fixed at 180 bar, while the required volume flow rate of lift-gas is calculated to be 188.76 MSm3/d.
For the IPO option, shown in Figure 33, the volume flow rate of lift-gas required is 196.0 MSm3/d and the required casing pressure is 171.11 bar. The Figure shows that this option gives shallower injection depth, but requires less number of mandrels and valves.
33
NTNU, June 2007
In this thesis, the valve-option resulting in the lowest compressor-effect demand is selected. For this Case, calculations show that the IPO valves are most suited. For the detailed compressor-calculations and valve selection, it is referred to Appendix B.1. Based on assumptions and calculations made in Appendix B.1, a flow chart of the lift-gas compression process at Statfjord was prepared and is presented in Figure 35. The gas lift system is considered a closed system, where the separator inlet stream equals the flowing wellhead production stream. As seen in the Figure, the gas stream flows from the separator to a cooler, through a compressor, and finally through a second cooler. The separator inlet stream is 88 C and 30 bar, while the second cooler outlet stream is 88 C and 171.1 bar.
For the overall Gas Lift system efficiency, equation (1) is used:
Useful and added effect for gas lift is defined in Chapter 6.1, equation (2):
Delta P is equal to the pressure at the perforations with no gas lift system minus the pressure at the perforations with a gas lift system. The static fluid pressure at the perforations without gas lift is 265 bar (no flow) while the flowing gradient with gas lift, which can be found highlighted in Table 10, is 204 bar. This gives a delta P equal to 61 bar.
Useful effect is calculated:
Added effect equals compressor effect, calculated in Appendix B.1 to be 531.5 kW
Overall gas lift system efficiency for Case A:
34
NTNU, June 2007
Inflow and tubing performance curves for the Gas lift Case A is shown in Figure 36. The Figure shows one well on Gas Lift producing at 5000 Sm3/d. PROSPER input values are enclosed as Table 16. These values are valve depths, casing pressure, injected GLR, gas gravity and delta P across valve.
For Case B:
A plot was prepared in PROSPER (Figure 37), showing the tubing performance curves for different values of injected GLR. This plot is based on the same tubing size as used for Case A and maximum gas injection depth (2748 m).
As illustrated in Figure 37, this Case (Figure 37: upper inflow line, reservoir pressure 100 bara) requires an unreasonably high injected GLR to produce. A production rate of about 1600 Sm3/d is reached when injecting 1600 MSm3/d, which corresponds to an injected GasLiquid Ratio of about 1000. Referring to Figure 37, it is seen that the tubing performance curves representing the higher injected GLR is steeper than the ones representing the lower injected GLR. The steeper the curve, the higher the friction pressure loss, which results in lower production flow rate.
Clearly, according to the above mentioned Figure, Gas Lift is not a feasible lift method for Case B. First and foremost, the preset wellhead pressure is too high and the flowing bottomhole pressure too low to get the production flow rate desired using this lift method.
In order to try to establish and quantify an efficiency trend for Gas Lift at a lower wellhead pressure for the given time frame (0-5 years of production), wellhead pressure in Case B was set to 5 bara and calculations were performed. The results are however not directly comparable to the Case B results for the other lift methods as two of the significant parameters have changed (production flow rate and wellhead back pressure), but should nevertheless show an efficiency trend for the Gas Lift system. The calculations for the modified Case B show an overall Gas Lift efficiency of 11.7% for the given conditions. Calculations are found as Appendix B.2.
35
NTNU, June 2007
For Case C: As the Gas Lift concept is based on lightening the fluid column, there is obviously a lower limit for the reservoir pressure where gas lift is no longer feasible as an artificial lift method. For Case C, reservoir pressure is set to 70 bar and wellhead backpressure fixed at 30 bar. Hence, if disregarding the friction pressure drop, the total static pressure gradient for the fluid column must be less than 40 bar, which corresponds to an average liquid density of about 150 kg/m3.
Referring to Figure 37 (lower inflow line, reservoir pressure 70 bara), it is shown that the Gas lifted well will not produce for Case C, independent of the injected GLR. Hence, Gas Lift is not feasible for Case C. As for Case B, the tubing performance curves on the plot represent assumed optimal configurations of tubing and maximum gas injection depth.
Calculations with a lower wellhead pressure were conducted also for Case C. This to try to establish and quantify an efficiency trend for Gas Lift at a lower wellhead pressure for the given time frame (5-10 years of production).The results are however not directly comparable to the Case C results for the other lift methods as two of the significant parameters have changed (production flow rate and wellhead back pressure), but should nevertheless show an efficiency trend for the Gas Lift system. The calculations for the modified Case C show an overall Gas Lift efficiency of 9.7% for the given conditions. Calculations are found as Appendix B.3.

As the above calculations show, Gas Lift gives a very high overall efficiency at the beginning of the 10 year period, but the efficiency rapidly decrease as the reservoir pressure is falling faster than the required production flow rate for each well (Figure 11). For Case B, the production demand of 3750 Sm3/d could not be reached. Maximum flow rate attainable is about 1600 Sm3/d, at an unreasonably high injected GLR of 1000.
36
NTNU, June 2007
Referring to Figure 37, it is seen that for Case C, independent of the injected GLR, the well will not produce. For this, the friction pressure drop in the production tubing is too high and the lifted fluid too dense.
As the wellhead backpressure has a large influence on the Gas Lift performance, calculations were conducted for Case B and C using a wellhead pressure of 5 bara.
The calculations done for the modified Case B and Case C clearly show a dramatic decline in overall efficiency from Case A to Case B. From Case B to Case C, bottomhole pressure was lowered from 85 bar to 60 bar, increasing the required injected GLR additionally. This results in a very low overall efficiency for the modified Case C.
For Case B and C, Gas Lift is considered to be a non-feasible artificial lift method. By altering the wellhead backpressure in Case B and C, it is shown that Gas Lift can be used, but it will produce less than the required production flow rate and with a very low overall efficiency.
On the basis of the above arguments, Gas Lift is not considered to be a suitable artificial lift method for the depressurization of Statfjord.
37
NTNU, June 2007
7. Application of Electrical Submersible Pump

7.1 Presentation of ESP model
As emphasised in Chapter 4, the main purpose of the artificial lift calculations is to establish a comparable efficiency-size for the different artificial lift solutions. For the ESP solution, the required topside effect is dependent on: bottomhole pressure, fluid density, desired flow rate, tubing pressure loss, voltage drop in electric cable, power loss due to the seal and overall efficiency of the motor and pump. Tubular pressure losses are computed, as for the other Chapters, using the Beggs and Brill-correlation (Beggs, H.D., Brill, J.P., 1973) in PROSPER.
To choose the right equipment, the required pump capacity has to be established. For this, the total dynamic head requirement is calculated. The following calculation procedures and equations are presented in the Submersible Pump Handbook from Baker Hughes CENTRILIFT:
For the Total Dynamic Head (TDH), we have the following relation:
(11)
where Hd is the vertical distance between the wellhead and the estimated producing fluid level measured in meters, Ft is the head required to overcome friction loss in the tubing in meters and Hwh (equal to Pd in Figure 46) is the head required to overcome the wellhead pressure, measured in meters.
Figure 46 illustrates the different elements in this equation.
Hd is calculated from the relation
Further,
38
NTNU, June 2007
As the length of the production tubing is known Hd can be computed based on the equations above.
Ft is estimated by using the relation:
And finally, Hwh is computed by the following relation:
In this thesis, ESP-gas calculations are neglected, as the producing volume flow rate of oil are very small, and the GOR are low. Hence, the calculated TDH forms the basis for the further sizing and ESP equipment selection. Further calculations for power requirements for seal, motor and pumps depend greatly on the equipment and manufacturer selected. Seal, motor and pump efficiencies can be extracted from performance curves and characteristic curves from the different manufacturers.
The power required by the downhole motor can be presented as:
(12)
39
NTNU, June 2007
where kWpump is the power required by the pump and kWseal is the power required by the seal section, which is equipment that helps protecting the electric motor from well fluids. Besides the kilowatts required to power the submersible motor, the power cable has certain energy losses which are associated with the cable resistance and results in cable heat. These losses can be calculated by the following formula:
(13)
where amps are the given motor current in ampere and resistance is the cable resistance in ohm adjusted for well temperature (see Chapter 7.2.2). The constant in equation (13) refers to the 3 conductors of the electric current. The electric current is transferred in 3 conductors or as 3 phases. In each conductor, the current is shifted 120 electrical degrees relative to each other in order to achieve a more even operation of the pump machinery (Hubert, C.I., 2002).
In addition to the energy consumed by the motor operation and the cable losses, a small amount of energy is consumed at the surface in the switchgear, cables, and transformers. The surface transformers are the main energy consumer and are usually between 97% and 99% efficient. As a result it is convenient to account for the surface losses by adding an additional 2% energy consumption to the calculated downhole value.
Hence, the total required input effect can be expressed as:
(14)
Certainly, there are other considerations for more detailed and advanced ESP-system dimensioning, including for instance Variable Speed Drive calculations. However, this is not included here. This is argued in later Chapters.
40
NTNU, June 2007
7.2 ESP performance

7.2.1 Main factors to control pump performance
As for the other artificial lift methods, there are some main factors which affect the ESP performance significantly, while other factors have little or no influence on the pump performance.
As opposed to Gas Lift, the tubing size has little influence on ESP performance, as long as the pump physically fits in the tubing. Changes in the wellhead back pressure will also be of less consequence for the ESP performance compared to the Gas Lift. This is seen in Figure 47, where the curve for the pump discharge pressure is quite steep compared to the IPR curve for the Gas Lift seen in, for instance, Figure 27.
Number of pump stages will affect the pump performance significantly. As illustrated in Figure 48, the production flow rate will increase considerably with increasing number of stages, as the total pressure gain over the pump will enhance.
Another factor that influences the performance of the ESP is the pump operating frequency. The operating frequency is proportional to the pump impellers RPM. This is illustrated in Figure 49, where the production flow rate increases with increase in the operating frequency. To optimise pump performance, the above mentioned factors and several others, have to be taken into consideration when sizing the ESP system.
7.2.2 ESP sizing

The sizing of a submersible pumping installation, just like other methods of artificial lift, is not an exact science and involves a number of factors. The procedure varies considerable with well conditions or fluids to be pumped. Detailed information on well completion, production history and reservoir conditions are very important. Collection of good data covering these conditions prior to sizing a submersible installation is essential to proper sizing.
41
NTNU, June 2007
For the ESP sizing in this thesis, the 9-step guide to ESP sizing by Baker Hughes CENTRILIFT is used. This is a nine step sizing procedure made to help engineers design and select the appropriate pumping systems for their wells. Detailed ESP calculations are found as Appendix C. The 9-step (Baker Hughes CENTRILIFT) guide consists of the following steps:
Step 1: Basic Data Step 2: Production Capacity Step 3: Gas Calculations Step 4: Total Dynamic Head Step 5: Pump Type Step 6: Optimum Size of Components Step 7: Electric Cable Step 8: Accessory & Optional Equipment Step 9: Variable Speed Pumping System For detailed description of each step it is referred to the 9-step guide.

For the ESP calculations, one must choose a manufacturer and gather essential data about different system components, such as pump characteristic curves, motor performance chart et cetera. In this thesis, Baker Hughes CENTRILIFT is chosen as the manufacturer of ESP.
Performance charts and characteristic curves for the selected pumps were received from Baker Hughes CENTRILIFT after an inquiry by the author. Unfortunately, specific performance curves for the selected motor and seal could not be obtained. Therefore, some required values for motor and seal calculations had to be estimated. However, the estimates should be fairly accurate. This is by best effort demonstrated in the calculations.
As Cases A, B and C use fixed flow rates, the Variable Speed Drive option is not included in this Chapter, but is further discussed as a solution in Chapter 10.
42
NTNU, June 2007
The ESP-sizing calculations in its entirety can be found in Appendix C. PROSPER generated ESP Performance curves are enclosed as Figure 56, Figure 57 and Figure 58. Tables 19, 20 and 21 contain data for the plots. Estimating overall ESP system efficiency using:
As defined in Chapter 4, useful effect is written as: Useful effect = where ,
is the pressure increase over the pump.
It is referred to Appendix C for the more detailed ESP sizing calculations.
Case A:
Pressure discharge and intake pressures are given, for this case, in Table 19. Intake Pressure is 230 bar, while the discharge pressure is about 300 bar. Delta P for the given production is ~ 71 bar. The total required topside effect is in Appendix C estimated to be 1092.1 kW.
Overall ESP efficiency:
For this Case, the pump chosen (Baker Hughes CENTRILIFT HC27000) is not the absolutely optimal. Calculations using the Baker Hughes CENTRILIFT HC35000 gave an overall efficiency for Case A of about 42%. However, the HC35000 pump is not feasible for use at lower flow rates due to the pump operating range. Therefore, considering both economical and practical aspects, the HC27000 Pump is selected.
43
NTNU, June 2007
Case B:
Estimating total ESP system efficiency: Pressure discharge and intake pressures are given, for this case, in Table 20. Delta P for the given production is ~ 206 bar. The total required topside effect is in Appendix C estimated to be 2042.4 kW for one well.
The total required input effect for all 10 wells are: 2042.4 kW x 10 = 20.424 MW
Case C:
Estimating total ESP system efficiency: Pressure discharge and intake pressures are given, for this case, in Table 21. Delta P for the given production is ~ 225 bar. The total required topside effect is in Appendix C estimated to be 1490.7 kW for one well.
The total required input effect for all 10 wells are: 1490.7 kW x 10 = 14.907 MW
44
NTNU, June 2007

Comparing the above results with the typical ESP hydraulic efficiencies presented in Chapter 2.2 (Figure 1), they seem reasonable. They all fall into the expected efficiency range, except for Case A, where the pump chosen is not optimal for the Case. This is further explained below the calculations for Case A. Also, as indicated in the Jet Pump calculations and in Chapter 5.4, it seems like the hydraulic efficiency is a few percent higher than the overall efficiency, which is used for the ESP calculations. Keeping this in mind, the calculation results for ESP are considered to be reasonable.
Some assumptions had to be made regarding the ESP equipment characteristics, as it was not possible to gather information about a few specific parts. As earlier emphasized, the accuracy of these assumptions must be taken into consideration when evaluating the efficiency and power-requirement results. However, it is argued and illustrated in Appendix C that the assumptions made should be fairly accurate Calculations performed by PROSPER gave results close to the ones presented here. PROSPER provides ESP options with pump characteristics very close to the pumps chosen in this thesis. By using the same ESP input values in PROSPER as calculated here, performance curves with flow rates for the three cases were generated. As seen in Figure 56, Figure 57 and Figure 58, the results from the PROSPER calculations and the manual calculations in Chapter 7.3 are surprisingly similar. Figure 56 shows one ESP lifted well flowing at 5000 Sm3/d, Figure 57 one ESP lifted well flowing at 3750 Sm3/d and Figure 58 one well flowing at 2500 Sm3/d.
Plots of overall efficiency and power requirement for the three Artificial Lift systems are presented as Figure 59 and Figure 60.
As illustrated in Figure 59, ESP is the artificial lift system with the highest overall efficiency for the three Cases, varying from 37.6% for Case A to 43.7% for Case B and C. Jet Pump has reported overall efficiencies on 30.5% for Case A to 25.9% and 24.2% for Case B and C respectively. For Gas Lift, the overall efficiency for Case A was 66%, while for Case B and C, efficiency was not attainable.
45
NTNU, June 2007
Referring to Figure 60, it is quite obvious that compared to Jet Pump, ESP is the most energy efficient lift system for all three Cases. For the Case with the highest total power requirement (Case B), Jet Pump requires about 40MW, while ESP requires about 20MW.
46
NTNU, June 2007
8. Artificial Lift Capex Estimates for Statfjord

Investment costs and equipment price will vary greatly between the different manufacturers of artificial lift systems. The different customers receive individual equipment and service prices depending on total value of the order, cooperation history et cetera. Hence, the investment costs will vary greatly depending on the inquirer. Capex numbers for the Jet Pump option was difficult to obtain, and the reliability of the source used here can be discussed.
For discount calculations, the following equation is used:
(15)
where
is the present value,
the value in year t, t the time in years and r the discount rate.
Here, a discount rate of 6% is used.
8.1 Capex estimates using Jet Pump

Regarding the continuity of the Jet Pump, it is referred to the SPE paper Obtaining Low Bottomhole Pressure in Deep Wells with Hydraulic Jet Pumps by Christ, F.C and Petrie, H.L. from 1989. The paper states that Jet Pumps normally lasts between 1-3 years when properly sized and operated, depending on the well conditions. For the calculations in this Chapter, a lifetime period of 3 years is selected for the Jet Pumps, according to well conditions with minimal gas production and with treated water as power fluid.
As investment costs for a Jet Pump system was difficult to obtain directly from the manufacturers, an estimated value from the paper Artificial Lift Selection for Gas Well Deliquification (Lea, J., et al., 2005) is used for the Capex estimate. Investment costs for the Jet Pump is in the paper estimated to 46 000 USD per pump. Using a conversion factor of 6.5 NOK/USD, the Jet Pump investment cost, per pump, is 300 000 NOK. However, this is for a Jet Pump handling a maximum of 200 Barrels/day. In this thesis, the Jet Pumps handle an average of about 20 000 Barrels/day. To estimate a Capex price for these pumps, the Law of Scaling (Gudmundsson, J.S, 2007-06-05) is used: NOK2 = NOK1 x (Capacity2/Capacity1)0.6
(16) 47
Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord This gives a Capex for each pump on: NOK2 = 300 000 NOK x (20 000 Barrels/d / 200 Barrels/d)0.6
NTNU, June 2007
5 million NOK.
This is probably a somewhat exaggerated amount, but is used for further calculations, as it was difficult to obtain a more accurate amount from the Jet Pump suppliers.
In Table 22, NPV Capex is estimated to be 144.6 million NOK. The Table contains the NPV Capex, as well as an overview of the discounted investment costs per year.
8.2 Capex estimates using Gas Lift

As Gas Lift has been found technically unsuitable for the depressurization project, no economical evaluations has been made for this artificial lift method. It is referred to Chapter 6.3 for calculations and further elaboration.
8.3 Capex estimates using ESP

In the paper Turning a North Sea Oil Giant Into a Gas Field Depressurization of the Statfjord Field (Boge, R. et al., 2005), it is stated that a mean average ESP lifetime of 18 months has been used for planning and budgeting purposes. However, experience from other fields may suggest that this is a somewhat optimistic estimate. Referring to the paper Deployment of High-Horsepower ESPs to Extend Brent Field Life (Blanksby, J., Hicking, S., 2005), the water producing ESPs applied on the Brent field have had varying lifetimes, with a reported average far below 18 months. But, the same paper also reports that with some adjustments, a pump lifetime of about 2 years should be obtainable. For calculations in this thesis, an estimated lifetime of 18 months is used.
The operator has supplied the initial ESP system investment costs, which is about 20 million NOK per well. Some of the equipment included in this price is for topside use, and will not need replacement through the projects life. It is assumed that the price for renewal of downhole equipment is 15 million NOK per well per workover. It is strongly emphasised that these are approximate prices from the operator, not exact prices directly from the supplier.
48
NTNU, June 2007
Table 23 contains the Capex estimate for the ESP option. Totally, it summarises to 792.4 million NOK. The Table contains the NPV Capex, as well as an overview of the discounted investment costs per year.
Figure 61 shows a comparison between Jet Pump and ESP Capex. From the Figure it is seen that ESP represents considerably larger investments costs than the Jet Pump. NPV Capex for ESP is calculated to be about 5.5 times higher than for Jet Pump.
49
NTNU, June 2007
9. Artificial Lift Opex Estimates for Statfjord

Opex calculations for the reviewed Artificial Lift solutions at Statfjord are a difficult task. It is strongly emphasized that the following calculations are based on various uncertainties and is not to be understood as accurate valuations. It is merely a financial estimation presented in order to separate the artificial lift methods in regards to operational expenses.
As mentioned in Chapter 4, input power for the Artificial Lift system is generated by topside turbines. Table 24, provided by Statoil ASA, shows the production cost calculations for the electrical power generated. The NOK/kWh value is calculated based on turbine fuel costs, maintenance, and taxes. The production cost used for the following Chapters is 0.412 NOK/kWh. Total average power costs per year are calculated as follows:
(17)
9.1 Opex estimates using Jet Pump

As emphasized in Chapter 5.3, the free Jet Pump solution is chosen. This pump can be easily retrieved and replaced without pulling the tubing. To retrieve the pump, circulation is reversed, forcing the pump to the surface. Maintenance and repair are infrequent and inexpensive for this solution, as the pump can be replaced and reconfigured without well intervention. Due to this fact, for Jet Pump Opex calculations, well interventions are considered unnecessary.
An Excel spreadsheet for the Opex calculations is enclosed as Table 25. As the Jet Pump Lift performance has not been calculated for each year, some simplifying assumptions have been made, based on Case A, B and C. An average pump discharge pressure of 325 bara has been assumed, as pump discharge pressure for the three cases is 326, 324 and 326 bara respectively (Appendix A, Case A,B,C, Step 16). Also, the overall Jet Pump efficiency has been assumed linearly decreasing from 30.5% to 24.2%. Based on this data, equation (1) and (2) was used to calculate the total required effect for each year of production. Average values were calculated for number of producing wells and total production the first three years (gradually producing from 1 well in 2010 to 10 wells in early 2013).
50
NTNU, June 2007
NPV Opex for the Jet Pump solution were calculated to be about 948 million NOK (Table 25), which is about 9.5 million NOK per well per year. Table 25 contains the NPV Opex, as well as an overview of the discounted production costs per year.
9.2 Opex estimates using Gas Lift

As shown earlier in the thesis, this is not a technically feasible Artificial Lift solution for the depressurization process. Economical estimations for Gas Lift will therefore not be conducted.
9.3 Opex estimates using ESP

One of the largest uncertainties regarding the operational expenses for ESP is the lifetime of the pumps. As a retrieval of the ESP pump requires a full well intervention and pulling of the tubing, the pump lifetime is vital to the economical estimates for the Artificial Lift method. According to available information from the operator, a well intervention will cost about 20 million NOK per well. The well intervention frequency is based on an ESP lifetime of 18 months. The excel spreadsheet for the ESP Opex calculations is found as Table 26. The Table contains NPV Opex, as well as an overview of the discounted production costs per year.
The ESP overall efficiency has been assumed linearly increasing from year 0 to year 5, and steady at 43.7% from year 5-10. Pump discharge pressure is assumed linearly decreasing from 300 bara in year 0 to 285 bara in year 10. For the ESP solution, the NPV Opex is about 1311 million NOK, or an average of 13.1 million NOK per well per year. The Opex calculations for both Jet Pump and ESP are plotted together with the belonging artificial lift efficiencies in Figure 63. One should be aware of that overall efficiency reported in this plot is the expected overall efficiency trend based on Case A, B and C calculations from Chapter 5 and 7. The overall efficiency for the whole depressurization period is
51
NTNU, June 2007
interpolated between three points, and although it gives a good indication for the efficiencytrend, its accuracy can be discussed.
Figure 62 shows the Opex distribution for ESP, where the dominance of well intervention costs is evident. The Figure illustrates the costs distribution both as percentage shares of total ESP Opex and as shares of total ESP Opex in million NOK.
Figure 63 illustrates average overall artificial lift efficiency vs. Opex for ESP and Jet Pump. The Figure shows that the ESP Opex, dominated by well intervention costs, is considerably higher than the Jet Pump Opex, even though the Jet Pump is significantly less energy efficient.
The total time distributed costs for the ESP and Jet Pump can be found in Figure 64 and Figure 65, respectively. The Figures plot total costs versus time, where the Capex and Opex values for each year are reported.
It is referred to Figure 66 for the total discounted costs for the 10 year project. Using ESP, the total discounted costs for 10 years estimates to about 2.1 billion NOK. For the Jet Pump the price is estimated to 1.1 billion NOK. Due to the high frequency well interventions and pump replacement, ESP is a very expensive alternative. Hence, from a financial point of view, the Jet Pump should be selected as the artificial water-lift system on Statfjord.
52
NTNU, June 2007
10. Discussion
Gas Lift calculations conducted for the cases presented in Chapter 4 strongly indicate that this is not a feasible artificial lift method for the depressurisation project. Gas Lift has a high overall efficiency for one well producing with a relatively high reservoir pressure, but the efficiency declines rapidly, as the reservoir pressure declines much faster than the required production flow rate per well.
Some parts of the Gas Lift design was performed using PROSPER, and it can be discussed whether or not the user input was entirely correct. Gas Lift design is a difficult and complex exercise and too many inaccurate assumptions can significantly affect the final Gas Lift design. However, for the calculations in Chapter 6, data for both the lift-gas and the wellconditions should be fairly accurate.
For Case B and C, Gas Lift was proven unsuitable as the Gas Lift system was unable to deliver the required flow rate regardless of the injected GLR. To evaluate the influence of the wellhead backpressure, calculations were made for Case B and C, lowering the wellhead pressure from 30 to 5 bara. However, the drop in wellhead backpressure was not sufficient to deliver the required water production flow rate. Also, the extra power needed to compress the gas from 5 bara instead of 30 bara resulted in a very low overall power efficiency, as the compressor input power is of vital importance to the overall efficiency for Gas Lift.
In general, the overall Gas Lift efficiency calculation methods presented in this thesis can be discussed. This method is very dependent on the power requirement of the topside compressor and the existing process-system on the platform. When considering the Gas Lift system as a closed system, the power requirement for the Gas Lift corresponds to the extra amount of power needed to compress the gas from system inlet pressure to desired casing pressure. If the gas is already compressed to the desired casing pressure, in a transport compressor or similar, a Gas Lift compressor should not be needed, and the efficiency can not be calculated, as the power requirement is zero. However, the method was in this thesis used in an effort to make comparable values for artificial lift efficiency.
ESP was calculated to be the artificial lift alternative with the highest overall power efficiency for Case B and C. Referring to Chapter 2.2, Andreassen (1990) and Jahn et al. (1998), this
53
NTNU, June 2007
should, in general, be a reasonable result. The overall efficiency for the ESP varies from 38% for Case A and 44% for Case B and C.
As emphasised in the Chapter 7 calculations, some of the characteristic curves for the selected ESP motor and seal could not be obtained. The assumptions made for these values should however be fairly reasonable, as the PROSPER calculated results was very similar to the manual calculation results.
Although it is, by far, the most energy efficient lift method for the larger part of the project, ESP has a short expected lifetime and requires a well intervention for pump retrieval. As both the ESP equipment and well interventions are very costly, the project economics depends greatly on the ESP lifetime. In this thesis, an average lifetime of the pumps on 18 months was used. This estimate could be argued to be too conservative, but also too optimistic. Based on, for instance, experience from the Brent field, it may seem like an optimistic estimate. Yet, based on the estimates from pump suppliers, it might be argued to be too conservative.
The ESP lifetime is an important factor when discussing both ESP Capex and Opex. More reliable pumps with longer lifetime will dramatically reduce the ESP costs. As new technology develops, the pumps will get a prolonged lifetime and increased reliability. However, when dealing with an expected ESP lifetime of 18 months, Jet Pump is estimated to be the reasonable choice of artificial lift system in regards to total costs.
For Jet Pump, both the overall and hydraulic efficiency was calculated, for comparison. The hydraulic efficiency varies from about 33 to about 27 percent, which is a reasonable value according to Jahn et al. (1998). Also, the overall power efficiency was calculated, using the equations presented in Chapter 4. The overall efficiency was, as expected, somewhat lower than the hydraulic efficiency, and varies from about 31 to 24 percent.
Although the free Jet Pump is selected and, ideally, no well intervention is required, the assumption of zero well interventions or other repair costs through the field life might be an exaggeration. Maintenance costs for Jet Pumps was very difficult to obtain. They should however be very small compared to the maintenance costs for the ESP.
54
NTNU, June 2007
Obtaining reasonable investment costs for Jet Pump systems is not a simple task. Referring to Chapter 8, the source and calculations method used here can be discussed. Anyhow, the Jet Pump investment costs used should be somewhat in the same order of magnitude as the costs given from the suppliers. In this thesis, the most important element is to illustrate the relative difference between Jet Pump and ESP equipment costs.
When planning the future offshore production systems, Integrated Operations and man-less installations are key words. This technology might also be implemented on Statfjord. In this regard, the low maintenance Jet Pumps should probably be selected before the high maintenance ESPs.
However, from an environmental point of view, the ESP is probably the most reasonable choice of artificial lift system. Through the Fields life, it is estimated that the required topside power for the ESP is about half of for the Jet Pump. This power is produced by gas turbines, which discharges both CO2 and NOx gases to the environment. Hence, the higher power production, the higher the degree of pollution.
Combinations of the two artificial lift systems could also be used, as a compromise between environmental thinking and total expenses. For instance, running Jet Pumps in the first period of the project and installing ESPs later in the project life, reducing both total well intervention costs and ESP investments costs.
Simplifications and assumptions will naturally have an impact on the results in this thesis. For instance, like assuming vertical wells instead of horizontal wells. However, it has been important to make simple cases, in order to get a reasonable comparison basis for the artificial lift methods.
Many different completion types are available for each pump system, for instance the ESP dual pump completion and variable speed drive for ESP. They are, however, not reviewed in this thesis, as it has been emphasized from NTNU that this thesis is not an engineering assignment, as traditionally carried out by engineering department and firms.
55
NTNU, June 2007
11. Conclusion
ESP, Gas Lift and Jet Pump are evaluated as petroleum production techniques for water lift. Calculations for the assumed optimal design are carried out for all three artificial lift methods, for three different cases, each case representing the depressurization phase at an early, middle and late stage.
Calculation results show that ESP has the highest overall efficiency for the larger part of the depressurization period, ranging from 38% at an early stage to 44% at a middle and late stage. Jet Pump overall efficiency ranges from 31% to 26% and 24% for the early, middle and late stage, respectively. Gas Lift is found to be an unsuitable artificial lift method for pumping of deep water at low reservoir pressures. Although this lift method achieves a very high overall power efficiency, 66%, for one well producing at a relatively high reservoir pressure, the reservoir pressure is estimated to decline very fast in the early phase of the depressurization project, preventing the Gas lifted wells to produce the required water flow rates, independent of the injected gas volume. For this, water is too dense and the friction pressure loss in the production tubing, caused by a high volume of injected gas, too high.
ESP is estimated to be, by far, the most energy efficient artificial lift alternative. The required topside electrical power input ranges from 1.1 MW for one well, to 20.4 MW and 14.9 MW for 10 wells at an early, middle and late project phase, respectively. For comparison, the power requirements for Jet Pumping are 1.8 MW for one well in the early phase, 40 MW for 10 wells in the middle phase and 31.8 MW for 10 wells in the late phase. Despite the fact that it is proven the most energy efficient lift system, ESP Opex is calculated to be considerably higher than Opex for the Jet Pump. This is mainly due to the high number of required costly well interventions, which is a consequence of short expected lifetime of the ESPs. NPV Opex for ESP is estimated to about 1300 million NOK, while Jet Pump NPV Opex is estimated to about 950 million NOK.
Compared to the Jet Pump, the ESP is also proved to be a very expensive alternative in regards to Capex. This is mainly due to the short expected ESP lifetime, resulting in a high
56
NTNU, June 2007
pump replacement frequency. Total NPV Capex for the two artificial lift methods are estimated to about 790 million NOK and 145 million NOK, for ESP and Jet Pump, respectively. Hence, from an economical perspective, this indicates that Jet Pump is the obvious preferred artificial lift system. However, if regarding the environmental aspects and the overall energy efficiency, ESP should be selected for the depressurization of the Statfjord Field.
57
NTNU, June 2007
12. References
Allan et al. (1989): Design and Application of an Integral Jet Pump/Safety valve in a North Sea oilfield, SPE article Andreassen, E. (1990): Power Analysis of Offshore Artificial Lift Electrical Submersible Pumping and Gas Lifting Compared, IPT, NTNU, Trondheim Baker Hughes CENTRILIFT: 9-Step, www.bakerhughesdirect.com Baker Hughes CENTRILIFT: Electrical Submersible Pump Handbook, www.bakerhughesdirect.com (requires user to create an account) Beggs, H.D., Brill, J.P. (1973): A Study of Two-Phase Flow in Inclined Pipes, Journal of Petroleum Technology Blanksby, J., Hicking, S. (2005): Deployment of High-Horsepower ESPs To Extend Brent Field Life, SPE-article Boge, R. et al. (2005): Turning a North Sea Oil Giant Into a Gas Field Depressurization of the Statfjord Field, SPE-article Brown, K. E. (1982): Overview of Artificial Lift Systems, SPE Article Christ, F.C, Petrie, H.L. (1989):Obtaining Low Bottomhole Pressure in Deep Wells With Hydraulic Jet Pumps, SPE Production Engineering Cook, H.L., Dotterweich, F.H. (1946): Report of the Calibration of Positive Flow Beans as Manufactured by Thornhill-Craver Company Inc., Texas College of A and I Cunningham, R. G. (1974): Gas Compression with the Liquid Jet Pump, Journal of Fluid Engineering Forero, G. et al. (1993):Artificial Lift Manual Part 2A Gas Lift Design Guide, Shell International (confidential) Grupping, A.W. et al. (1988): Fundamentals of Oilwell Jet Pumping, SPE Production Engineering Gudmundsson, J.S, personal communication, 2007-06-05 Hubert, C.I. (2002): Electrical Machines, Prentice Hall, Ohio Jahn, F. et al. (1998): Hydrocarbon exploration and production, Netherlands Jiao, B. (1988): Performance model for hydraulic jet pumping of two phase fluids, Tulsa, USA Lea, J., et al. (2005):Artificial Lift Selection for Gas Well Deliquification, Gas Well De-Liquification Workshop, Denver
58
NTNU, June 2007
Lea, J.F., Winkler, H.W. (1994):New and Expected Developments in Artificial Lift, SPE-article Pedersen, P.J. (2006): Review and Application of the Tulsa Liquid Jet Pump Model, IPT, NTNU, Trondheim. Petrie, H.L. et al. (1983): Jet Pumping Oil Wells, World Oil PROSPER Gas Lift Design Help Manual
59
NTNU, June 2007
Tables
Table 1: Well data for Case A (Statoil ASA)
Input Data Pump Setting depth,D Casing OD Casing ID,d1 Bottomhole temperature,T Flowing bottomhole pressure,Pi Wellhead back pressure,Pwh Desired flowrate,Qi Water Cut ,Wc Gas-oil ratio Oil gravity Water gradient Oil viscosity Oil gradient PI Unit m m m C Pa Pa Sm^3/s Sm^3/Sm^3 kg/sm^3 Pa/m Pas Pa/m Sm^3/d/bar Value 2748 0,2667 0,245 92 23000000 3000000 0,05787037 0,995 20 843 10300 0,00135 7100 250
Table 2: Well data for Case B (Statoil ASA)

60
Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Table 3: Well data for Case C (Statoil ASA)
NTNU, June 2007
Table 4: Data table for the return annular liquid flow. This is calculated by PROSPER, setting the return conduit to casing-tubing annulus. Highlighted are the return liquid flow rate (step 11, Case A, Chapter 5.3) and the corresponding friction pressure loss.
61
NTNU, June 2007
Table 5: Data table for the return annular liquid flow. This is calculated by PROSPER, setting the return conduit to casing-tubing annulus. Highlighted are the return liquid flow rate (step 11, Case B, Chapter 5.3) and the corresponding friction pressure loss.
Table 6: Data table for the return annular liquid flow. This is calculated by PROSPER, setting the return conduit to casing-tubing annulus. Highlighted are the return liquid flow rate (step 11, Case C, Chapter 5.3) and the corresponding friction pressure loss.
62
NTNU, June 2007
Table 7: PROSPER data chart for Figure 18.
Table 8: PROSPER data chart for Figure 19
63
NTNU, June 2007
64
Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Table 11: Statfjord B lift-gas composition (Statoil ASA)
NTNU, June 2007
65
Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Table 12: Input data for Figure 33(PROSPER)
NTNU, June 2007
66
Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Table 13: Input data for Figure 34 (PROSPER)
NTNU, June 2007
67
NTNU, June 2007
Table 14: Properties and conditions for the gas lift gas stream (PPO valve option). (HYSYS generated)
68
NTNU, June 2007
Table 15: Properties and conditions for the gas lift gas stream (IPO valve option). (HYSYS generated)
69
Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Table 16: Input data for the Gas lift calculations, Case A.
NTNU, June 2007
70
Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Table 17: Data for the producing gas lift well, Appendix B.2.
NTNU, June 2007
71
NTNU, June 2007
Table 18: Data for the producing gas lift well, Appendix B.3.
72
Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Table 19: Data Chart for Figure ESP Case A
NTNU, June 2007
Table 20: Data Chart for Figure ESP Case B
73
Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Table 21: Data Chart for Figure ESP Case C
NTNU, June 2007
Table 22: CAPEX Estimate Jet Pump. CAPEX Estimate for Jet Pump Solution - Brent Group (Statfjord Field)
Year
Total # wells at end of year # New Pumps Total pump equipment price, MMNOK Discounted investment costs, MMNOK Total discounted investment costs,10 years, MMNOK
2010 4 4 20,00
2011 8 4 20,00
2012 10 2 10,00
2013 10 4 20,00
2014 10 4 20,00
2015 10 2 10,00
2016 10 4 20,00
2017 10 4 20,00
2018 10 2 10,00
2019 10 4 20,00
2020 10 4 20,00
20,00
18,87
8,90
16,79
15,84
7,47
14,10
13,30
6,27
11,84
11,17
144,6
Table 23: CAPEX Estimate ESP. CAPEX Estimate for ESP Solution - Brent Group (Statfjord Field)
Year
Total # wells at end of year # New Pumps Total pump equipment price, MMNOK Discounted investment costs, MMNOK Total discounted investment costs,10 years, MMNOK
2010 4 4 80 80,0
2011 8 6 110 103,8
2012 10 6 100 89,0
2013 10 8 120 100,8
2014 10 6 90 71,3
2015 10 6 90 67,3
2016 10 8 120 84,6
2017 10 6 90 59,9
2018 10 6 90 56,5
2019 10 8 120 71,0
2020 10 1 15 8,4
792,4
74
Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord Table 24: Production cost of electrical power at Statfjord (Statoil ASA).
Production cost of electrical power : NOK/kW DLE SAC kNOK/Year kNOK/Year 22157,5 0 0 37224,6 3722,5 2800
NTNU, June 2007
Based on LM2500 Fuel gas cost Diesel gas cost Flare gas cost CO2 tax Nox tax Maintenance REGEX Total annular cost @20MW Electrical power (MWh) CO2 (ton/year) CO2 (ton/MWh) NOx (kg/year) NOx (kg/MWh) Total spec. cost (NOK/kWh)
22157,5
37224,6 21448,5 2800
65904,6 160000 88748936,17 555 69386,7 0,434 0,412
83630,7
399799,7 2,499 0,523
Assumptions Spec. fuel gas cost 0,5 NOK/Sm3 Spec. Diesel cost 4 NOK/litre Spec. CO2 cost 0,84 NOK/Sm3 Spec. CO2 cost 0,84 NOK/litre Spec. Nox cost 40 NOK/kg CO2 faktor 2,686 m3CO2/Sm3 Fuel gas consumtion@20 MW 1,147 kg/s Fuel gas density 0,7456 kg/m3 Gassens brennverdi 47940 kJ/kg Turbinens heat rate 9900 kJ/kW*hr NOx factor DLE 0,0021 kgNOx/Sm3 NOx factor SAC 0,0121 kgNOx/Sm3 Operation time @fuelgas 8000 Hours/year Operation time @diesel 0 Hours/year Operation time @flare 0 Hours/year Fuel gas consumption@20 MW 44315050 m3/year Maintanance 350 NOK/hour Turbine efficiency 36,4 % Spare engine available, availability ok
Table 25: OPEX Estimate Jet Pump

OPEX Estimate for Jet Pump Solution - Brent Group (Statfjord Field)
Year Average # wells through year Average Reservoir pressure, bara Average flowing bottomhole pressure, bara Average total production, Sm^3/d Average expected Artificial Lift efficiency, % Average expected pump discharge pressure, bara Total useful effect = Q_production P, kW Total input effect = Total useful effect / efficiency, kW Average power costs / year, MMNOK Estimated well intervention costs / year, MMNOK Total production costs / year, MMNOK Discounted total production costs / year, MMNOK
2010 2,5 228 223 12190
2011 6,5 170 158 30206
2012 9,5 135 118 42478
2013 10 120 103 42500
2014 10 110 94 40000
2015 10 100 85 37500
2016 10 90 76 35000
2017 10 85 72 32500
2018 10 80 68 30000
2019 10 75 64 27500
2020 10 70 60 25000
30,5
29,6
28,7
27,7
26,8
25,9
25,6
25,2
24,9
24,5
24,2
325
325
325
325
325
325
325
325
325
325
325
1437 4713 17
5841 19747 71
10177 35508 128
10920 39366 142
10694 39875 144
10417 40219 145
10087 39463 142
9517 37735 136
8924 35867 129
8307 33852 122
7668 31685 114
17
71
128
142
144
145
142
136
129
122
114
17
67
114
119
114
108
100
91
81
72
64
Total discounted production costs,10 years,
948
75
NTNU, June 2007
Table 26: OPEX Estimate ESP

OPEX Estimate for ESP Solution - Brent Group (Statfjord Field)
Year Average # wells through year Average Reservoir pressure, bara Average flowing bottomhole pressure, bara Average total production, Sm^3/d Average expected Artificial Lift efficiency, % Average expected pump discharge pressure, bara Total useful effect = Q_production P, kW Total input effect = Total useful effect / efficiency, kW Average power costs / year, MMNOK # Well interventions / year Estimated well intervention costs / year, MMNOK Total production costs / year, MMNOK Discounted total production costs / year, MMNOK
2010 2,5 228
2011 6,5 170
2012 9,5 135
2013 10 120
2014 10 110
2015 10 100
2016 10 90
2017 10 85
2018 10 80
2019 10 75
2020 10 70
223 12190 37,6
158 30206 38,8
118 42478 40,0
103 42500 41,3
94 40000 42,5
85 37500 43,7
76 35000 43,7
72 32500 43,7
68 30000 43,7
64 27500 43,7
60 25000 43,7
300
298
296
295
293
291
290
289
287
286
285
1085
4904
8770
9425
9204
8941
8661
8148
7618
7072
6510
2885 10 0
12634 46 2
21904 79 4
22842 82 8
21666 78 6
20460 74 6
19819 72 8
18644 67 6
17433 63 6
16184 58 8
14898 54 1
40
80
160
120
120
160
120
120
160
20
10
86
159
242
198
194
232
187
183
218
74
10
81
142
204
157
145
163
125
115
129
41
Total discounted production costs,10 years,
1311
76
NTNU, June 2007
Figures
Figure 1: Comparison of different artificial lift methods (Jahn, F. et al., 1998)
77
NTNU, June 2007
Figure 2: Relative advantages of artificial lift systems. (Brown, K.E., 1982)
78
NTNU, June 2007
Figure 3: Relative disadvantages of artificial lift systems. (Brown, K.E., 1982)
79
NTNU, June 2007
Figure 4: Jet pump operating principles (Allan et al., 1989, www.weatherford.com)
80
NTNU, June 2007
Figure 5: Illustration of centrifugal pump principles (www.ipt.ntnu.no/~jsg/undervisning/prosessering/forelesninger/06-Pumper.pdf)
Figure 6: Illustration of ESP configuration (www.bakerhughesdirect.com)
81
NTNU, June 2007
Figure 7: Geographical map of the Statfjord field. (www.statoil.com)
Figure 8: The Tampen area. (www.statoil.com) 82
NTNU, June 2007
Figure 9: Stratigraphical column showing depositional environment and permeabilities. (Boge, R. et al., 2005)
83
NTNU, June 2007
Figure 10: Illustration of the Statfjord depressurization process (Boge et al., 2005)
84
Pressure, bara
50
100
150
300
200
250
0
January 1, 2010 May 1, 2010
September 1, 2010 January 1, 2011

May 1, 2011 September 1, 2011 January 1, 2012 May 1, 2012 September 1, 2012 January 1, 2013 May 1, 2013 September 1, 2013
January 1, 2014 May 1, 2014 September 1, 2014

January 1, 2015 May 1, 2015 September 1, 2015 January 1, 2016 May 1, 2016 September 1, 2016 January 1, 2017
Waterproduction and Reservoir Pressure vs. Time - Brent
Time, years
May 1, 2017 September 1, 2017 January 1, 2018
May 1, 2018 September 1, 2018 January 1, 2019 May 1, 2019 September 1, 2019 January 1, 2020
5000 0
10000
20000
25000
35000
40000
50000
15000
Figure 11: Water production and reservoir pressure decline vs. time for the Brent formation (Statoil ASA)
Production flowrate, Sm^3/d
30000
45000
NTNU, June 2007
Production, Sm^3/d
Reservoir pressure, bara
Production per well, Sm^3/d
85

Inflow v Outflow Curves - Water Producer on Natural Lift
320 4 3 2 1 0
NTNU, June 2007
Variables 1:Reservoir Pressure (BARa) 1 2 0=70.00 1=100.00 2=150.00 3=200.00 4=250.00
240 4
Pressure (BARa)
3 160
80 1
0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Liquid Rate (Sm 3/day) PVT Method Black Oil Top Node Press ure 30.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.000 (percent) Com pletion Cased Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.0 (m ) Gas Coning No Artificial Lift None Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill Reservoir Model PI Entry Lift Type Vertical Lift Correlation Beggs and Brill 0.95 0.48 Perm eability No Relative Predicting Pressure and Tem perature (offshore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Reservoir Pres sure 250.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Intersection Dis Allow Reservoir Tem perature 92.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord Well Eksem pel Analyst BFS Date 16 Jan 07 12:16
Figure 12: Water Producer on natural lift at various reservoir pressures. (PROSPER generated)
86

Inflow v Outflow Curves
60 0 IPR Curve VL P Curve PDP
NTNU, June 2007
Va riab les 3:Jet Pum p Inje ction Rate (Sm 3/da y) 1 2 3 0=500 .0 1=100 0.0 2=200 0.0
50 0
Pressure (BARa)
40 0
30 0
2 1 0
2 1 0 20 0 0 20 00 40 00
2 1 0 80 00
60 00
Liq uid Ra te (Sm 3/da y) PVT Meth od Black Oil To p No de Pres s ure 30 .00 (BARa ) Inflow Type Single Bran ch Flu id Oil Water Cu t 0.00 0 (p erce nt) 10 Com pletion Cas e d Ho le Flo w Typ e An nula r Bottom Meas ure d De pth27 48.0 (m ) Grave l Pa ck No Well Type Pro ducer Bottom True Vertical Depth27 48.0 (m ) Gas Conin g No Artificial Lift Jet Pum p Surface Equip me nt Co rrelation Beg gs an d Brill Res e rvoir Mo del PI Entry Lift Typ e Tu bing In je ctio n - An nula r Pro duction Ve rtical Lift Corre la tio n Petroleum Exp erts 2 Relative Perm eab ility No Pre dictin g Pre s s u re a nd Tem perature (offs ho re) Te mp erature Mo del Roug h App ro xima tio n Solutio n No de Bottom Node Res e rvoir Pres s ure 0.00 (BARa ) 25 Com pan y Statoil Le ft-Ha nd Inte rs e ctio n Dis Allow Res e rvoir Tem pe ra tu re 92 .0 (d eg C) Fie ld Statfjord JET Pum p Te s t - No zzle (1 5) Throat (3 ) An 0.084 At 0.322 R 0.2 62 Well Eks em pe l An alys t BFS Date 16 Ja n 07 12 :16
Figure 13: Jet performance using different power fluid injection rates. PDP = Pump Discharge Pressure. (PROSPER generated)
60 0 IPR Curve VL P Curve PDP Va riab les 3:Jet Pum p Inje ction Pres s ure (BARa ) 1 2 3 0=100 .00 1=200 .00 2=400 .00 3=600 .00 4=800 .00
50 0
Pressure (BARa)
40 0
30 0
4 3 2 1 0
4 3 2 1 0 20 0 0 20 00 40 00
4 3 2 1 0 80 00
60 00
Liq uid Ra te (Sm 3/da y) PVT Meth od Black Oil To p No de Pres s ure 30 .00 (BARa ) Inflow Type Single Bran ch Flu id Oil Water Cu t 0.00 0 (p erce nt) 10 Com pletion Cas e d Ho le Flo w Typ e An nula r Bottom Meas ure d De pth27 48.0 (m ) Grave l Pa ck No Well Type Pro ducer Bottom True Vertical Depth27 48.0 (m ) Gas Conin g No Artificial Lift Jet Pum p Surface Equip me nt Co rrelation Beg gs an d Brill Res e rvoir Mo del PI Entry Lift Typ e Tu bing In je ctio n - An nula r Pro duction Ve rtical Lift Corre la tio n Petroleum Exp erts 2 Relative Perm eab ility No Pre dictin g Pre s s u re a nd Tem perature (offs ho re) Te mp erature Mo del Roug h App ro xima tio n Solutio n No de Bottom Node Res e rvoir Pres s ure 0.00 (BARa ) 25 Com pan y Statoil Le ft-Ha nd Inte rs e ctio n Dis Allow Res e rvoir Tem pe ra tu re 92 .0 (d eg C) Fie ld Statfjord JET Pum p Te s t - No zzle (1 5) Throat (3 ) An 0.084 At 0.322 R 0.2 62 Well Eks em pe l An alys t BFS Date 16 Ja n 07 12 :16
Figure 14: Jet performance using different power fluid injection pressures. PDP = Pump Discharge Pressure. (PROSPER generated) 87
NTNU, June 2007
Figure 15: Jet Pump nozzle and throat sizes from 3 manufacturers; Kobe, National and Guiberson. (Petrie, H.L. et al., 1983)
Figure 16: General Jet Pump Nozzle/Throat combinations (Allan et al., 1989) 88
NTNU, June 2007
Figure 17: 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)
Inflow v Outflow Curves - 1 well flowing @ 5000 Sm^3/d

600 IPR Curve VLP Curve PDP
500
Pressure (BARa)
400
300
200 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Liquid Rate (Sm 3/day) PVT Method Black Oil Top Node Pres s ure 30.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.000 (percent) Com pletion Cas ed Hole Flow Type Annular Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.0 (m ) Gas Coning No Artificial Lift Jet Pum p Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill Res ervoir Model PI Entry Lift Type Tubing Injection - Annular Production Vertical Lift Correlation Petroleum Experts 2 Relative Perm eability No Predicting Pres s ure and Tem perature (offs hore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Res ervoir Pres s ure 250.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Inters ection Dis Allow Res ervoir Tem perature 92.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord JET Pum p Tes t - Nozzle (15) Throat (3) An 0.084 At 0.322 R 0.262 Well Eks em pel Analys t BFS Date 16 Jan 07 12:16
Figure 18: Jet Pump performance curves. PDP = Pump Discharge Pressure. (PROSPER generated)
89
NTNU, June 2007

450
Pressure (BARa)
300
150
0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Liquid Rate (Sm 3/day) PVT Method Black Oil Top Node Press ure 30.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.000 (percent) Com pletion Cased Hole Flow Type Annular Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.0 (m ) Gas Coning No Artificial Lift Jet Pum p Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill Reservoir Model PI Entry Lift Type Tubing Injection - Annular Production Vertical Lift Correlation Petroleum Experts 2 Relative Perm eability No Predicting Pressure and Tem perature (offshore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Reservoir Pres sure 100.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Intersection Dis Allow Reservoir Tem perature 92.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord JET Pum p Test - Nozzle (15) Throat (3) An 0.084 At 0.322 R 0.262 Well Eksem pel Analyst BFS Date 16 Jan 07 12:16
Figure 19: Jet Pump performance curves. PDP = Pump Discharge Pressure.(PROSPER generated)
90

NTNU, June 2007
300
Pressure (BARa)
200
100
0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Liquid Rate (Sm 3/day) PVT Method Black Oil Top Node Press ure 30.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.000 (percent) Com pletion Cased Hole Flow Type Annular Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.0 (m ) Gas Coning No Artificial Lift Jet Pum p Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill Reservoir Model PI Entry Lift Type Tubing Injection - Annular Production Vertical Lift Correlation Petroleum Experts 2 Relative Perm eability No Predicting Pressure and Tem perature (offshore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Reservoir Pres sure 70.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Intersection Dis Allow Reservoir Tem perature 92.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord JET Pum p Test - Nozzle (17) Throat (4) An 0.132 At 0.628 R 0.210 Well Eksem pel Analyst BFS Date 16 Jan 07 12:16
Figure 20: Jet Pump performance curves. PDP = Pump Discharge Pressure.(PROSPER generated)
91
NTNU, June 2007
Hydraulic Efficiency vs. Power Requirement, Case A

40
35
16E
30
25
Nozzle 16
Nozzle 17
Hydraulic Efficiency, [%]
Nozzle 18 20 Nozzle 19
Nozzle 20
15
10
500
1000
1500
2000 Power, [HP]
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
Figure 21: Nozzle/Throat selection for Case A.

Hydraulic Efficiency vs. Power Requirement
35,0
30,0
16E
25,0
Nozzle 16
20,0
Nozzle 17
Nozzle 18
Nozzle 19
15,0
Nozzle 20
10,0
5,0
0,0 0,00
2000,00
4000,00
6000,00 Power, [HP]
8000,00
10000,00
12000,00
Figure 22: Nozzle/Throat selection for Case B.
92
NTNU, June 2007
Hydraulic Efficiency vs. power requirement

35,0
30,0
19B
25,0
Nozzle 16
20,0
Nozzle 17
Nozzle 18 15,0
Nozzle 19
Nozzle 20
10,0
5,0
0,0 0,00
2000,00
4000,00
6000,00 Power, [HP]
8000,00
10000,00
12000,00
14000,00
Figure 23: Nozzle/Throat selection for Case C.
93
NTNU, June 2007
Figure 24: Effect of gas injection on flowing gradient. Pf equals flowing bottomhole pressure.
94

320
NTNU, June 2007
Variables 1:Reservoir Pressure (BARa) 1 2 0=200.00 1=225.00 2=250.00
240 2 1 2 1 0
Pressure (BARa)
0 160
80
0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Liquid Rate (Sm 3/day) PVT Method Black Oil Top Node Press ure 30.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.000 (percent) Com pletion Cased Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.0 (m ) Gas Coning No Artificial Lift Gas Lift Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill Reservoir Model PI Entry Lift Type Friction Los s In Annulus Vertical Lift Correlation Beggs and Brill 0.95 0.48 Perm eability No Relative Predicting Pressure and Tem perature (offshore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Reservoir Pres sure 250.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Intersection Dis Allow Reservoir Tem perature 92.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord Well Eksem pel Analyst BFS Date 16 Jan 07 12:16
Figure 25: Illustration of gas-lift performance at various reservoir pressures. (PROSPER generated)
95

400
NTNU, June 2007
Variables 3:Tubing/Pipe Diameter (inches ) 1 2 1
3 0=2.00 1=4.00 2=6.00 3=8.00
300
Pressure (BARa)
3 2 1 0
2 3
200
100
0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Figure 26: Illustration of gas-lift performance at various tubing sizes. (PROSPER generated)
96

320
NTNU, June 2007
Variables 1:Firs t Node Pres s ure (BARa) 1 2 0=5.00 1=10.00 2=15.00 3=20.00 4=25.00 5=30.00 5 4 3 2 1 0
240 5 4 3 2 1 0
Pressure (BARa)
160
80
0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Liquid Rate (Sm 3/day) PVT Method Black Oil Water Cut 100.000 (percent) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.0 (m ) Com pletion Cas ed Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Gas Coning No Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill Artificial Lift Gas Lift Vertical Lift Correlation Beggs and Brill 0.95 0.48 ervoir Model PI Entry Res Lift Type Friction Los s In Annulus Relative Perm eability No Predicting Pres s ure and Tem perature (offs hore) Solution Node Bottom Node Temperature Model Rough Approximation Left-Hand Inters ection Dis Allow Res ervoir Pres s ure 250.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Res ervoir Tem perature 92.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord Well Eks em pel Analys t BFS Date 16 Jan 07 12:16
Figure 27: Illustration of gas-lift performance at various wellhead pressures. (PROSPER generated)
Figure 28: Example of a Gas Lift performance curve.
97

320
NTNU, June 2007
Variables 3:Casing Pressure (BARa) 1 2 1 0
3 0=50.00 1=100.00 2=150.00 3=200.00
240 3 2 1 0
2 3
Pressure (BARa)
160
80
0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Figure 29: Illustration of gas-lift performance at various casing pressures. (PROSPER generated)
Figure 30: Two different valve-concepts. To the left, the pressure valve (IPO), to the right the Fluid Valve (PPO). (www.valve-world.net)
98
NTNU, June 2007
Figure 31: Example on mandrel and valve spacing for PPO-configured gas lift string. (PROSPER help-manual)
Figure 32: HYSYS generated envelope for the Statfjord lift-gas (year 2009). The gas composition is given in table 11.
99

Temperature (deg C)
NTNU, June 2007
0 0
30
60
90
120 GASLIFT DESIGN (NEW WELL) REPORT Val ve Type Casi ng Sensiti ve Mi n CHP Decrease Per Valve 3.447 (bar) Desi gn Rate Method Entered By User Desi gn Li qui d Rate5000.5 (Sm3/day) Check Rate Conformance With IPR Yes Dome Pressure Correction Above 1200psi g No Inj ection Poi nt Inj ection Poi nt i s ORIFICE Val ve Setti ng Fi rst Valve PVo = Gas Pressure Tubing Correl ation Beggs and Bri ll 0.95 0.48 Pi pe Correlati on Beggs and Bri ll Use IPR For Unl oading Yes Orifi ce Si zi ng Method Cal culated dP At Ori fice Val ve Manufacturer Val ve1 Val ve Type R-20 Val ve Speci ficati on Monel Maximum Gas Avai lable 00.000 (1000Sm3/d) 2 Maximum Gas Duri ng Unl oading00.000 (1000Sm3/d) 2 Fl owi ng Top Node Pressure 30.00 (BARa) Unl oading Top Node Pressure 30.00 (BARa) Operati ng Injection Pressure180.00 (BARa) Ki ck-Off Inj ecti on Pressure180.00 (BARa) Desi red dP Across Valve 1.000 (bar) Maximum Depth Of Inj ecti on2748.0 (m) Water Cut 100.000 (percent) Mi nimum Spaci ng 76.2 (m) Static Gradi ent Of Load Fl uid 0.103 (bar/m) Mi nimum Transfer dP 25.00 (percent) Safety For Closure Of Last Unloadi ng Val ve 2.000 (bar) Total GOR 20.0 (Sm3/Sm3) ACTUAL Liqui d Rate5000.5 (Sm3/day) ACTUAL Oil Rate 0 (Sm3/day) ACTUAL Gas Injection Rate 96.052 (1000Sm3/d) 1 ACTUAL Inj ecti on Pressure171.11 (BARa)
700
True Vertical Depth (m)
1400
Val ve
2100 Val ve Orifi ce
2800 0 60 120 180 240
Pressure (BARa) PVT Method Bl ack Oil Pressure Fl ui d Oi l Temperature Fl ow Type Tubing Operati ng Gas Gradi ent Wel l Type Producer Unl oading Gradient Arti ficial Li ft Gas Lift Mi nimum Pressure Li ft Type Fri ction Loss In Annulus P Min Predi cti ng Pressure and Temperature (offshore) P Max Temperature Model Rough Approximati on Casi ng dP At Val ve Company Statoi l Fi el d Statfj ord Wel l Eksempel Analyst BFS Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Inflow Type Si ngl e Branch Completi on Cased Hol e Gravel Pack No Gas Coni ng No Reservoi r Model PI Entry Rel ati ve Permeabi l ity No Reservoi r Pressure 250.00 (BARa) Reservoi r Temperature 92.0 (deg C)
Figure 33: Gas lift design for Case A, Chapter 6.4, based on input parameters presented in Table 12 (IPO Valves). (PROSPER generated)
100

Temperature (deg C) (Eksempel 08 May 07 13:15)
NTNU, June 2007
0 0
30
60
90
120 GASLIFT DESIGN (NEW WELL) REPORT Valve Type Tubing Sensitive Percent Pcasing-Pwh 30.00 (percent) Design Rate Method Entered By User Design Liquid Rate5000.5 (Sm3/day) Check Rate Conformance With IPR Yes Dome Pressure Correction Above 1200psig No Injection Point Injection Point is ORIFICE Tubing Correlation Beggs and Brill 0.95 0.48 Pipe Correlation Beggs and Brill Use IPR For Unloading Yes Orifice Sizing Method Calculated dP At Orifice Valve Manufacturer Valve1 Valve Type R-20 Valve Specification Monel Maximum Gas Available 00.000 (1000Sm3/d) 2 Maximum Gas During Unloading00.000 (1000Sm3/d) 2 Flowing Top Node Pressure 30.00 (BARa) Unloading Top Node Pressure 30.00 (BARa) Operating Injection Pressure180.00 (BARa) Kick-Off Injection Pressure180.00 (BARa) Desired dP Across Valve 1.000 (bar) Maximum Depth Of Injection2748.0 (m) Water Cut 100.000 (percent) Minimum Spacing 76.2 (m) Static Gradient Of Load Fluid 0.103 (bar/m) Minimum Transfer dP 25.00 (percent) Safety For Closure Of Last Unloading Valve 2.000 (bar) Total GOR 20.0 (Sm3/Sm3) ACTUAL Liquid Rate5000.5 (Sm3/day) ACTUAL Oil Rate 0 (Sm3/day) ACTUAL Gas Injection Rate 88.760 (1000Sm3/d) 1 ACTUAL Injection Pressure180.00 (BARa)
700
1400
Valve
2100
Valve Valve Valve Orifice
2800 0 60 120 180 240
Pressure (BARa) PVT Method Black Oil Pressure Fluid Oil Temperature Flow Type Tubing Operating Gas Gradient Well Type Producer Unloading Gradient Artificial Lift Gas Lift Minimum Pressure Lift Type Friction Loss In Annulus P Min Predicting Pressure and Temperature (offshore) P Max Temperature Model Rough Approximation Casing dP At Valve Company Statoil Field Statfjord Well Eksempel Analyst BFS Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Inflow Type Single Branch Completion Cased Hole Gravel Pack No Gas Coning No Reservoir Model PI Entry Relative Permeability No Reservoir Pressure 250.00 (BARa) Reservoir Temperature 92.0 (deg C)
Figure 34: Gas lift design for Case A, Chapter 6.4, based on input parameters presented in Table 13 (PPO Valves). (PROSPER generated)
Figure 35: Flow chart for the lift-gas compression process. (HYSYS generated)
101

320
NTNU, June 2007
240
Pressure (BARa)
160
80
0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Figure 36: Gas Lift performance curves for Case A. (PROSPER generated)
102

Inflow v Outflow Curves - Case B & C
320
NTNU, June 2007
240 E E E 17 07 E 10 00
Variables 1:Reservoir Pressure (BARa) 2:GLR Injected (Sm 3/Sm 3) 1 2 0=70.00 0=50.0 1=100.00 1=100.0 2=200.0 3=300.0 4=400.0 5=500.0 6=600.0 7=1000.0
Pressure (BARa)
E E 160 E
E 11 16 06 E E 01 15 14 12 05 13 04 02 03
80
17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10
07 06 05 04 03 02 01 00
0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Figure 37: Gas Lift Performance curves for different values of injected GLR, Case B and C (Reservoir pressure at 100 and 70 bara), E= Erosional Velocity Limit Exceeded (high dP friction for the marked flowrates). (PROSPER generated).
103

Gas Lift Performance Curve
28 00
NTNU, June 2007
26 00
Liquid Rate (Sm3/day)
24 00
22 00
20 00 0 30 0 60 0 90 0 12 00
GLR In je cte d (Sm 3/Sm 3) PVT Meth od Black Oil Bottom Meas ure d De pth Flu id Oil Bottom True Vertical Depth Flo w Typ e Tu bing Surface Equip me nt Co rrelation Well Type Pro ducer Ve rtical Lift Corre la tio n Artificial Lift Gas Lift Lift Typ e Friction Los s In An nulus Firs t No de Pre dictin g Pre s s u re a nd Tem perature (offs ho re) La s t No de Te mp erature Mo del Roug h App ro xima tio n Com pan y Statoil Fie ld Statfjord Well Eks em pe l An alys t BFS Date 16 Ja n 07 12 :16 27 48.0 (m ) 27 48.0 (m ) Inflow Type Com pletion Grave l Pa ck Gas Conin g Single Bran ch Cas e d Ho le No No
Beg gs an d Brill Beg gs an d Brill 0.95 0.48 Res e rvoir Mo del PI Entry 1 Xma s Tree 0 (m ) Relative Perm eab ility No 3 Tubing 274 8.0 ) (m Res e rvoir Pres s ure 0.00 (BARa ) 10 Res e rvoir Tem pe ra tu re 92 .0 (d eg C)
Figure 38: Gas Lift Performance Chart for Appendix B.2. (PROSPER generated)
Inflow v Outflow Curves - Modified Case B

280
E 210
Pressure (BARa)
140
70
0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Liquid Rate (Sm 3/day) PVT Method Black Oil Top Node Pres s ure 5.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.000 (percent) Com pletion Cas ed Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.0 (m ) Gas Coning No Artificial Lift Gas Lift Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill Res ervoir Model PI Entry Lift Type Friction Los s In Annulus Vertical Lift Correlation Beggs and Brill 0.95 0.48 Perm eability No Relative Predicting Pres s ure and Tem perature (offs hore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Res ervoir Pres s ure 100.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Inters ection Dis Allow Res ervoir Tem perature 92.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord Well Eks em pel Analys t BFS Date 16 Jan 07 12:16
Figure 39: Inflow/outflow curves for Appendix B.2 (PROSPER generated).
104

Temperature (deg C) (Eksempel 29 May 07 12:23)
NTNU, June 2007
0 0
30
60
90
120 GASLIFT DESIGN (NEW WELL) REPORT Val ve Type Tubing Sensitive Percent Pcasi ng-Pwh 30.00 (percent) Desi gn Rate Method Entered By User Desi gn Li qui d Rate 2645.3 (Sm3/day) Check Rate Conformance With IPR Yes Dome Pressure Correction Above 1200psi g No Inj ection Poi nt Inj ection Poi nt i s ORIFICE Tubing Correl ation Beggs and Bri ll 0.95 0.48 Pi pe Correlati on Beggs and Bri ll Use IPR For Unl oading Yes Orifi ce Si zi ng Method Cal culated dP At Ori fice Val ve Manufacturer McMurry-Macco Val ve Type RF-2 Val ve Speci ficati on Normal Maximum Gas Avai lable 1200.000 (1000Sm3/d) Maximum Gas Duri ng Unl oading 1200.000 (1000Sm3/d) Fl owi ng Top Node Pressure 5.00 (BARa) Unl oading Top Node Pressure 5.00 (BARa) Operati ng Injection Pressure 130.00 (BARa) Ki ck-Off Inj ecti on Pressure 130.00 (BARa) Desi red dP Across Valve 1.000 (bar) Maximum Depth Of Inj ecti on 2748.0 (m) Water Cut 00.000 (percent) 1 Mi nimum Spaci ng 76.2 (m) Static Gradi ent Of Load Fl uid 0.103 (bar/m) Mi nimum Transfer dP 25.00 (percent) Safety For Closure Of Last Unloadi ng Val ve 2.000 (bar) Total GOR 20.0 (Sm3/Sm3) ACTUAL Liqui d Rate 2645.3 (Sm3/day) ACTUAL Oil Rate 0 (Sm3/day) ACTUAL Gas Injection Rate848.205 (1000Sm3/d) ACTUAL Inj ecti on Pressure 130.00 (BARa)
700
Val ve 1400
Val ve 2100
2800
Orifi ce 0 40 80 120 160
Pressure (BARa) PVT Method Bl ack Oil Pressure Fl ui d Oi l Temperature Fl ow Type Tubing Operati ng Gas Gradi ent Wel l Type Producer Unl oading Gradient Arti ficial Li ft Gas Lift Mi nimum Pressure Li ft Type Fri ction Loss In Annulus P Min Predi cti ng Pressure and Temperature (offshore) P Max Temperature Model Rough Approximati on Casi ng dP At Val ve Company Statoi l Fi el d Statfj ord Wel l Eksempel Analyst BFS Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Inflow Type Si ngl e Branch Completi on Cased Hol e Gravel Pack No Gas Coni ng No Reservoi r Model PI Entry Rel ati ve Permeabi l ity No Reservoi r Pressure 100.00 (BARa) Reservoi r Temperature 92.0 (deg C)
Figure 40: Gas lift design for Appendix B.2, based on input parameters presented in Table 17 (PPO Valves). (PROSPER generated)
Figure 41: Flow chart for the lift-gas compression process, Appendix B.2. (HYSYS generated)
105

Gas Lift Performance Plot
1540
NTNU, June 2007
1470
Liquid Rate (Sm3/day)
1400
1330
1260 0 300 600 900 1200
GLR Injected (Sm 3/Sm 3) PVT Method Black Oil Bottom Meas ured Depth Fluid Oil Bottom True Vertical Depth Flow Type Tubing Surface Equipment Correlation Well Type Producer Vertical Lift Correlation Artificial Lift Gas Lift Lift Type Friction Los s In Annulus First Node Predicting Pressure and Tem perature (offshore) Last Node Temperature Model Rough Approximation Com pany Statoil Field Statfjord Well Eksem pel Analyst BFS Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Inflow Type Single Branch 2748.0 (m ) Com pletion Cased Hole 2748.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Beggs and Brill Gas Coning No Beggs and Brill 0.95 0.48 Reservoir Model PI Entry 1 Xmas Tree 0 ) (m Relative Perm eability No 3 Tubing 2748.0 ) (m Reservoir Pres sure 70.00 (BARa) Reservoir Tem perature 92.0 (deg C)
Figure 42: Gas Lift Performance Chart for Appendix B.3. (PROSPER generated)
Inflow v Outflow Curves - Modified Case C
240 Variables 2:GLR Injected (Sm 3/Sm 3) 1 2 0=500.0
180 E E E E 0
Pressure (BARa)
E E E 120 E
60 0
0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Figure 43: Inflow/outflow curves for Appendix B.3 (PROSPER generated).
106

Temperature (deg C)
NTNU, June 2007
0 0
30
60
90
120 GASLIFT DESIGN (NEW WELL) REPORT Valve Type Tubing Sensitive Percent Pcasing-Pwh 30.00 (percent) Design Rate Method Entered By User Design Liquid Rate1539.2 (Sm3/day) Check Rate Conformance With IPR Yes Dome Pressure Correction Above 1200psig No Injection Point Injection Point is ORIFICE Tubing Correlation Beggs and Brill 0.95 0.48 Pipe Correlation Beggs and Brill Use IPR For Unloading Yes Orifice Sizing Method Calculated dP At Orifice Valve Manufacturer Camco Valve Type BK-F6 Valve Specification Normal Maximum Gas Available 00.000 (1000Sm3/d) 9 Maximum Gas During Unloading00.000 (1000Sm3/d) 9 Flowing Top Node Pressure 5.00 (BARa) Unloading Top Node Pressure 5.00 (BARa) Operating Injection Pressure110.00 (BARa) Kick-Off Injection Pressure110.00 (BARa) Desired dP Across Valve 1.000 (bar) Maximum Depth Of Injection2748.0 (m) Water Cut 100.000 (percent) Minimum Spacing 76.2 (m) Static Gradient Of Load Fluid 0.103 (bar/m) Minimum Transfer dP 25.00 (percent) Safety For Closure Of Last Unloading Valve 2.000 (bar) Total GOR 20.0 (Sm3/Sm3) ACTUAL Liquid Rate1539.2 (Sm3/day) ACTUAL Oil Rate 0 (Sm3/day) ACTUAL Gas Injection Rate 36.716 (1000Sm3/d) 7 ACTUAL Injection Pressure110.00 (BARa)
700
Valve
1400
Valve
2100
Valve
2800
Orifice 0 40 80 120 160
Pressure (BARa) PVT Method Black Oil Pressure Fluid Oil Temperature Flow Type Tubing Operating Gas Gradient Well Type Producer Unloading Gradient Artificial Lift Gas Lift Minimum Pressure Lift Type Friction Loss In Annulus P Min Predicting Pressure and Temperature (offshore) P Max Temperature Model Rough Approximation Casing dP At Valve Company Statoil Field Statfjord Well Eksempel Analyst BFS Date 16 Jan 07 12:16 Inflow Type Single Branch Completion Cased Hole Gravel Pack No Gas Coning No Reservoir Model PI Entry Relative Permeability No Reservoir Pressure 70.00 (BARa) Reservoir Temperature 92.0 (deg C)
Figure 44: Gas lift design for Appendix B.3, based on input parameters presented in Table 18 (PPO Valves). (PROSPER generated)
Figure 45: Flow chart for the lift-gas compression process, Appendix B.3. (HYSYS generated)
107
NTNU, June 2007
Figure 46: Illustration of elements influencing the Total Dynamic Head. (www.bakerhughesdirect.com)
108

40 0 IPR Curve VL P Curve PDP
NTNU, June 2007
Va riab les 1:Firs t No de Pres s ure (BARa) 1 2 0=5.00 1=10.0 0 2=15.0 0 3=20.0 0 4=25.0 0 5=30.0 0
35 0
Pressure (BARa)
30 0
5 4 3 2 1 0 5 4 3 2 1 0
25 0
5 4 3 2 1 0
20 0 0 20 00 40 00 60 00 80 00
Liq uid Ra te (Sm 3/da y) PVT Meth od Black Oil Water Cu t 0.00 0 (p erce nt) 10 Inflow Type Single Bran ch Flu id Oil Bottom Meas ure d De pth27 48.0 (m ) Com pletion Cas e d Ho le Flo w Typ e Tu bing Bottom True Vertical Depth27 48.0 (m ) Grave l Pa ck No Well Type Pro ducer Gas Conin g No Surface Equip me nt Co rrelation Beg gs an d Brill Artificial Lift Electrical Subm e rs ib le Pum p Ve rtical Lift Corre la tio n Beg gs an d Brill 0.95 0.48 e rvoir Mo del PI Entry Res Lift Typ e Relative Perm eab ility No Pre dictin g Pre s s u re a nd Tem perature (offs ho re) Solutio n No de Bottom Node Te mp erature Mo del Roug h App ro xima tio n Le ft-Ha nd Inte rs e ctio n Dis Allow Res e rvoir Pres s ure 0.00 (BARa ) 25 Com pan y Statoil Res e rvoir Tem pe ra tu re 92 .0 (d eg C) ESP Pum p ESP - TN10 50C Fie ld Statfjord ESP Mo to r Well Eks em pe l ESP Ca ble #1 Cop per An alys t BFS Date 16 Ja n 07 12 :16
Figure 47: ESP performance at varying wellhead pressures. (PROSPER generated).

540 IPR Curve VLP Curve PDP Variables 1:Num ber of Stages 1 2 0=20.00 1=40.00 2=60.00 3=80.00
450
Pressure (BARa)
360
3 2 1 0 3 270 2 1 0 3 2 1 0
180 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Liquid Rate (Sm 3/day) PVT Method Black Oil Top Node Pres s ure 30.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.000 (percent) Com pletion Cas ed Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.0 (m ) Gas Coning No Artificial Lift Electrical Subm ers ible Pum p Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill Res ervoir Model PI Entry Lift Type Vertical Lift Correlation Beggs and Brill 0.95 0.48 Perm eability No Relative Predicting Pres s ure and Tem perature (offs hore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Res ervoir Pres s ure 250.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Inters ection Dis Allow Res ervoir Tem perature 92.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord ESP Pum p ESP - TN1050C Well Eks em pel ESP Motor Analys t BFS ESP Cable #1 Copper Date 16 Jan 07 12:16
Figure 48: ESP performance with different # pump stages. (PROSPER generated)
109

NTNU, June 2007
Variables 1:Operating Frequency (Hertz) 1 2 0=30.00 1=40.00 2=50.00 3=60.00
420
Pressure (BARa)
350
3 3 2 1 0 280 2
3 2 1 0 210 0 2000 4000
1 0 8000
6000
Liquid Rate (Sm 3/day) PVT Method Black Oil Top Node Pres s ure 30.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.000 (percent) Com pletion Cas ed Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.0 (m ) Gas Coning No Artificial Lift Electrical Subm ers ible Pum p Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill Res ervoir Model PI Entry Lift Type Vertical Lift Correlation Beggs and Brill 0.95 0.48 Perm eability No Relative Predicting Pres s ure and Tem perature (offs hore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Res ervoir Pres s ure 250.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Inters ection Dis Allow Res ervoir Tem perature 92.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord ESP Pum p ESP - TN1050C Well Eks em pel ESP Motor Analys t BFS ESP Cable #1 Copper Date 16 Jan 07 12:16
Figure 49: ESP performance at various operating frequencies. (PROSPER generated)
110
NTNU, June 2007
Figure 50: Performance curve for the Baker Hughes CENTRILIFT 675 HC27000, 60 Hz Pump. The lines give the performance data for the given flow rate in Case A. (www.bakerhughesdirect.com)
Figure 51: Seal horsepower consumption chart for the Baker Hughes 513-series seal. (www.bakerhughesdirect.com)
111
NTNU, June 2007
Figure 52: Example of a Baker Hughes CENTRILIFT Motor performance curve. (www.bakerhughesdirect.com)
112
NTNU, June 2007
Figure 53: Technical specifications for the 725-series motor, Cable power loss chart and Power cable specifications. (www.bakerhughesdirect.com)
113
NTNU, June 2007
Figure 54: Performance curve for the Baker Hughes CENTRILIFT 675 HC27000, 60 Hz Pump. The lines give the performance data for the given flow rate in Case B. (www.bakerhughesdirect.com)
114
NTNU, June 2007
Figure 55: Performance curve for the Baker Hughes CENTRILIFT 675 HC20000, 60 Hz Pump. The lines give the performance data for the given flow rate in Case C. (www.bakerhughesdirect.com)
115

NTNU, June 2007
350
Pressure (BARa)
300
250
200 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Liquid Rate (Sm 3/day) PVT Method Black Oil Top Node Press ure 30.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.000 (percent) Com pletion Cased Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth 0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth 0 (m ) Gas Coning No Artificial Lift Electrical Subm ersible Pum p Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill Reservoir Model PI Entry Lift Type Vertical Lift Correlation Beggs and Brill 0.95 0.48 Perm eability No Relative Predicting Pressure and Tem perature (offshore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Reservoir Pres sure 250.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Intersection Dis Allow Reservoir Tem perature 92.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord ESP Pum p ESP - TN1050C Well Eksem pel ESP Motor Analyst BFS ESP Cable #1 Copper Date 16 Jan 07 12:16
Figure 56: ESP - performance curves. PDP = Pump Discharge Pressure.(PROSPER generated)
116

NTNU, June 2007
600
Pressure (BARa)
400
200
0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Liquid Rate (Sm 3/day) PVT Method Black Oil Top Node Press ure 30.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.000 (percent) Com pletion Cased Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth 0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth 0 (m ) Gas Coning No Artificial Lift Electrical Subm ersible Pum p Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill Reservoir Model PI Entry Lift Type Vertical Lift Correlation Beggs and Brill 0.95 0.48 Perm eability No Relative Predicting Pressure and Tem perature (offshore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Reservoir Pres sure 100.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Intersection Dis Allow Reservoir Tem perature 92.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord ESP Pum p CENTRILIFT - IA600 Well Eksem pel ESP Motor Analyst BFS ESP Cable #1 Copper Date 16 Jan 07 12:16
117

NTNU, June 2007
330
Pressure (BARa)
220
110
0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Liquid Rate (Sm 3/day) PVT Method Black Oil Top Node Press ure 30.00 (BARa) Inflow Type Single Branch Fluid Oil Water Cut 100.000 (percent) Com pletion Cased Hole Flow Type Tubing Bottom Meas ured Depth2748.0 (m ) Gravel Pack No Well Type Producer Bottom True Vertical Depth2748.0 (m ) Gas Coning No Artificial Lift Electrical Subm ersible Pum p Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill Reservoir Model PI Entry Lift Type Vertical Lift Correlation Beggs and Brill 0.95 0.48 Perm eability No Relative Predicting Pressure and Tem perature (offshore) Temperature Model Rough Approximation Solution Node Bottom Node Reservoir Pres sure 70.00 (BARa) Com pany Statoil Left-Hand Intersection Dis Allow Reservoir Tem perature 92.0 (deg C) Field Statfjord ESP Pum p CENTRILIFT - HC19000 Well Eksem pel ESP Motor Analyst BFS ESP Cable #1 Copper Date 16 Jan 07 12:16
Figure 59: Artificial Lift efficiency based on Case A, B and C, for ESP, GL and Jet Pump.
118
NTNU, June 2007
Figure 60: Artificial Lift Effect Demand for Case A, B and C.
119
NTNU, June 2007
Figure 61: Artificial Lift Capex.
120
NTNU, June 2007
Figure 62: ESP Opex distribution.
121
NTNU, June 2007
Figure 63: Average overall Artificial Lift efficiency vs. Opex.
Figure 64: Total estimated costs (Capex + Opex) for the ESP solution.
122
NTNU, June 2007
Figure 65: Total estimated costs (Capex + Opex) for the Jet Pump solution.
Figure 66: Total estimated project costs (Capex + Opex).
123
NTNU, June 2007
Appendixes
Appendix A Jet Pump Calculations
Following are the Jet Pump calculations for Case A, B and C. For Case A, the well data can be found in Table 1. For nomenclature, it is referred to Pedersen, P.J. (2006).
124
NTNU, June 2007
125
NTNU, June 2007
126
NTNU, June 2007
These results seem reasonable for Case A. The results are further discussed in Chapter 5.4
Following are the Jet Pump calculations for Case B. The calculations are conducted for 1 well and multiplied by 10 at the end, to get the total power demand for all 10 wells. Well data for Case B are enclosed as Table 2.
127
NTNU, June 2007
128
NTNU, June 2007
129
NTNU, June 2007
These results seem reasonable for Case B. The results are further discussed in Chapter 5.4 Finally follows the Jet Pump calculations for Case C. The calculations are conducted for 1 well and multiplied by 10 at the end, to get the total power demand for all 10 wells. Well data for Case C are enclosed as Table 3.
130
NTNU, June 2007
131
NTNU, June 2007
132
NTNU, June 2007
133
NTNU, June 2007
Appendix B.1 Gas Lift calculations, Case A

Calculations for compressor effect, Case A:
From the real gas law we have:
, where
(18)
Adiabatic compression work, equation (9):
Inserting equation 18 into equation 9 yields:
(19)
The gas lift system is considered a closed system, where the inlet pressure for the topside liftgas compressor is equal to the flowing wellhead pressure (30 bara). To reduce required compressor effect, the gas-stream is run through a cooler before reaching the compressor, lowering the temperature of the compressor feed stream from 88 to about 20C
HYSYS calculates z and k values for the given gas composition (Table 11, year 2009), at the given inlet pressure and temperature. Table 14 and 15 contains values for the PPO and IPOoptions, respectively.
For the PPO-option we have:
Z(@30bar/20C) = 0.8722 k = 1.4
134
NTNU, June 2007
Based on the adiabatic compression work, we get the compression effect by using equation (10):
Inserting an assumed compressor-efficiency on 85%, we get:
For the IPO-option we have:
Z(@30bar/20C) = 0.8722 k = 1.4
Inserting an assumed compressor-efficiency on 85%, we get:
Hence, the IPO-option is chosen for further calculations, even though the above calculations show very little deviation in compressor power-demand for the two options.
HYSYS calculations for the IPO-alternative gave a compressor effect on 531.5 kW. The HYSYS-flow chart for the process is shown as Figure 35. The results show that the manual calculations presented here are fairly accurate. The HYSYS compressor-effect value is used for further calculations in Chapter 6.3.
135
NTNU, June 2007
Appendix B.2 Gas Lift calculations, Case B

Below follows a brief estimate of the gas lift efficiency when reducing the wellhead pressure for Case B to 5 bara. In comparison with Case B, the data used in the below calculations differ in wellhead backpressure and the producing volume flow rate. Tubing dimensions are the same as used in Case A.
PROSPER is used to calculate tubing intake curves for different injected GLR values, shown in Figure 37. A Gas Lift performance plot for the modified Case B is shown in Figure 38. Referring to Figure 38, it is seen that the injected GLR (IGLR) representing the highest production flow rate is about 317. This corresponds to a water production of about 2645 Sm3/d. Figure 39 shows the inflow/outflow curves for the IGLR representing the highest water production (Figure 38). Table 17 contains the input data for Figure 39. The well produces at 2645.5 Sm3/d using an IGLR of 317 Sm3/ Sm3 (849 MSm3/d injected gas, Table 17). Figure 40 shows a suggested Gas Lift tubing design, using PPO-valves which were found best suited for this Case. The maximum casing pressure is 130 bar.
To calculate the compressor effect, HYSYS was used. Figure 41 shows the separation and compression process, where the gas stream is compressed from 5 to 130 bar. The gas composition from year 2015 (Table 11) was used for the compressor-effect calculations. Using an adiabatic compression efficiency of 85%, HYSYS calculated the effect required to compress 849 MSm3/d from 5 to 130 bar (Figure 41) to be 5215 kW. For review and demonstration of the manual calculation method, it is referred to Chapter 6.1 and 6.3.
The overall efficiency of the Gas Lift is calculated as in Chapter 6.3, Case A:
Useful and added effect for gas lift is defined in Chapter 6.1 as:
136
NTNU, June 2007
Delta P is equal to the pressure at the perforations with no gas lift system minus the pressure at the perforations with a gas lift system. The static fluid pressure at the perforations without gas lift is 265 bar (no flow), while the flowing gradient is about 65 bar with gas lift (Highlighted in Table 17). This gives a delta P equal to 200 bar. Production is 2645 Sm3/d (Table 17).
Hence,
Total Gas Lift efficiency for this case:
Appendix B.3 Gas Lift calculations, Case C

Below follows a brief estimate of the gas lift efficiency when reducing the wellhead pressure for Case C to 5 bara. In comparison with Case C, the data used in the below calculations differ in wellhead backpressure and the producing volume flow rate. Tubing dimensions are the same as used in Case A.
PROSPER is used to calculate tubing intake curves for different injected GLR values, shown in Figure 37. A Gas Lift performance plot for the modified Case C is shown in Figure 42. Referring to Figure 42, it is seen that the injected GLR (IGLR) representing the highest production flow rate is about 500. This corresponds to a water production of about 1539 Sm3/d. Figure 43 shows the inflow/outflow curves for the IGLR representing the highest water production (Figure 42). Table 18 contains the input data for Figure 43. The well produces at 1539 Sm3/d using an IGLR of 500 Sm3/ Sm3 (736 MSm3/d injected gas, Table 18). Figure 44 shows a suggested Gas Lift tubing design, using PPO-valves which were found best suited for this Case. The maximum casing pressure is 110 bar.
137
NTNU, June 2007
To calculate the compressor effect, HYSYS was used. Figure 45 shows the separation and compression process, where the gas stream is compressed from 5 to 110 bar. The gas composition from year 2020 (Table 11) was used for the compressor-effect calculations. Using an adiabatic compression efficiency of 85%, HYSYS calculated the effect required to compress 736 MSm3/d from 5 to 110 bar (Figure 45) to be 4226 kW. For review and demonstration of the manual calculation method, it is referred to Chapter 6.1 and 6.3.
The overall efficiency of the Gas Lift is calculated as in Chapter 6.3, Case A:
Useful and added effect for gas lift is defined in Chapter 6.1 as:
Delta P is equal to the pressure at the perforations with no gas lift system minus the pressure at the perforations with a gas lift system. The static fluid pressure at the perforations without gas lift is 265 bar (no flow), while the flowing gradient is about 44.4 bar with gas lift (Highlighted in Table 18). This gives a delta P equal to 220 bar. Production is 1539 Sm3/d (Table 18). Hence,
Total Gas Lift efficiency for this case:
138
NTNU, June 2007
Appendix C ESP Calculations

Case A:
Calculations for sizing the ESP Pump
STEP 1 - Basic data Input Data Pump Setting depth,D Casing OD Casing ID,d1 Tubing OD,d2 Tubing Id,d5 Tubing coupling OD,d4 Length of tubing Bottomhole temperature,T Flowing bottomhole pressure,Pi Wellhead back pressure,Pwh Desired flowrate,Qi Water Cut ,Wc Gas-oil ratio Oil gravity Water gravity Water gradient Oil viscosity Oil gradient PI Reservoir Pressure, Pr Number of wells Following the 9 step procedure from Centrilift STEP 2 - Production capacity For the Inflow Performance Curve for Case A, it is referred to Figure 9 (represented by line 4 in the plot) STEP 3 - Gas calculations As the producing volume of oil is very low compared to the water production,and the GOR is as low as 20, the producing gas is neglected in these calculations STEP 4 - Total dynamic Head TDH (Total Dynamic Head) = Hd + Ft + Hwh Total dynamic head delivered by the pump when pumping the desired volume Vertical distance between wellhead and the estimated producing fluid level at the expected capacity the head required to overcome friction loss in tubing. the head required to overcome preset wellhead pressure Unit m m m m m m m C Pa Pa Sm3/s Sm3/Sm3 kg/sm3 kg/sm3 Pa/m Pas Pa/m Sm^3/d/bar Pa Value 2748 0,2667 0,245 0,1397 0,124 0,127 2748 92 23000000 3000000 0,05787037 0,995 20 843 1030 10300 0,00135 7100 250 25000000 1
230 bar 30 bar 5000 Sm3/d
0,103 bar/m 0,071 bar/m 250 bar
Hd
Ft Hwh
Hd
Hd
471,7 m
H tubingleng th
Hfluidlevel g
H fluidlevel
fluid
Pwf
Hfluidlevel
Pwf
fluid
Pfriction
Ft
Head required to exceed wellhead pressure, Total Dynamic Head (TDH) STEP 5 - Pump type Selecting the type of Pump The predetermined production volume of
16,6 bar 200,7 m
(deltaPfriction retrieved from PROSPER)
Pfriction Pwh
fluid
fluid
Ft
Ft H wh
3396 ft
fluid
H wh
362,8 m 1035,2 m
H wh
Pfriction g Pwh g fluid
5000 Sm^3/d
equals
31446,5 bbl/d 31446,5 bbl/d 62 ft
It is referred to Figure 50 for the performance curves that represent the Centrilift ESP pump most suited for the production volume of From CENTRILIFTs range of pumps, the HC27000 is selected. For the given production volume, the head/stage (ft) is about For further information on the given pump and other pumps in the CENTRILIFT Pump Line , it is referred to the Baker Hughes website.
18,9 m
139
NTNU, June 2007
140
NTNU, June 2007
Case B:
STEP 1 - Basic data Input Data Pump Setting depth,D Casing OD Casing ID,d1 Tubing OD,d2 Tubing Id,d5 Tubing coupling OD,d4 Length of tubing Bottomhole temperature,T Flowing bottomhole pressure,Pi Wellhead back pressure,Pwh Desired flowrate,Qi Water Cut ,Wc Gas-oil ratio Oil gravity Water gravity Water gradient Oil viscosity Oil gradient PI Reservoir Pressure, Pr Number of wells Following the 9 step procedure from Centrilift (ref) STEP 2 - Production capacity For the Inflow Performance Curve for Case B, it is referred to Figure 9 (represented by line 1 in the plot) STEP 3 - Gas calculations As the producing volume of oil is very low compared to the water production,and the GOR is as low as 20, the producing gas is neglected in these calculations STEP 4 - Total dynamic Head TDH (Total Dynamic Head) = Hd + Ft + Hwh Total dynamic head delivered by the pump when pumping the desired volume Vertical distance between wellhead and the estimated producing fluid level at the expected capacity the head required to overcome friction loss in tubing. the head required to overcome preset wellhead pressure Unit m m m m m m m C Pa Pa Sm3/s Sm3/Sm3 kg/sm3 kg/sm3 Pa/m Pas Pa/m Sm^3/d/bar Pa Value 2748 0,2667 0,245 0,1397 0,124 0,127 2748 92 8500000 3000000 0,04340278 0,995 20 843 1030 10300 0,00135 7100 250 10000000 10
85 bar 30 bar 3750 Sm3/d
0,103 bar/m 0,071 bar/m 100 bar
Hd
Ft Hwh
Hd
Hd
1906,8 m
H tubingleng th
Hfluidlevel g
Hfluidlevel
fluid
Pwf
Hfluidlevel
Pwf
fluid
Pfriction
Ft
9,5 bar 114,9 m
Pfriction Pwh
fluid
fluid
Ft
Ft H wh
7823 ft
fluid
H wh
362,8 m 2384,4 m
H wh
3750 Sm^3/d
equals
23584,9 bbl/d 23584,9 bbl/d 80 ft
It is referred to Figure 54 for the performance curves that represent the Centrilift ESP pump most suited for the production volume of From CENTRILIFTs range of pumps, the HC27000 is selected. For the given production volume, the head/stage (ft) is about This is the assumed optimal pump for this flow rate. For further information on the given pump and other pumps in the CENTRILIFT Pump Line, it is referred to the Baker Hughes website.
24,4 m
141
NTNU, June 2007
142
NTNU, June 2007
Case C:
STEP 1 - Basic data Input Data Pump Setting depth,D Casing OD Casing ID,d1 Tubing OD,d2 Tubing Id,d5 Tubing coupling OD,d4 Length of tubing Bottomhole temperature,T Flowing bottomhole pressure,Pi Wellhead back pressure,Pwh Desired flowrate,Qi Water Cut ,Wc Gas-oil ratio Oil gravity Water gravity Water gradient Oil viscosity Oil gradient PI Reservoir Pressure, Pr Number of wells Following the 9 step procedure from Centrilift STEP 2 - Production capacity For the Inflow Performance Curve for Case A, it is referred to Figure 9 (represented by line 0 in the plot) STEP 3 - Gas calculations As the producing volume of oil is very low compared to the water production,and the GOR is as low as 20, the producing gas is neglected in these calculations STEP 4 - Total dynamic Head TDH (Total Dynamic Head) = Hd + Ft + Hwh Total dynamic head delivered by the pump when pumping the desired volume Vertical distance between wellhead and the estimated producing fluid level at the expected capacity the head required to overcome friction loss in tubing. the head required to overcome preset wellhead pressure Unit m m m m m m m C Pa Pa Sm3/s Sm3/Sm3 kg/sm3 kg/sm3 Pa/m Pas Pa/m Sm^3/d/bar Pa Value 2748 0,2667 0,245 0,1397 0,124 0,127 2748 92 6000000 3000000 0,02893519 0,995 20 843 1030 10300 0,00135 7100 250 7000000 10
60 bar 30 bar 2500 Sm3/d
0,103 bar/m 0,071 bar/m 70 bar
Hd
Ft Hwh
Hd
Hd
2154,2 m
H tubingleng th
Hfluidlevel g
Hfluidlevel
fluid
Pwf
Hfluidlevel
Pwf
fluid
Pfriction
Ft
4,35 bar 52,6 m
Pfriction Pwh
fluid
fluid
Ft
Ft H wh
8430 ft
fluid
H wh
362,8 m 2569,6 m
H wh
2500 Sm^3/d
equals
15723,3 bbl/d 15723,3 bbl/d 82,5 ft
It is referred to Figure 55 for the performance curves that represent the Centrilift ESP pump most suited for the production volume of From CENTRILIFTs range of pumps, the HC2000 is selected. For the given production volume, the head/stage (ft) is about This is the assumed optimal pump for this flow rate. For further information on the given pump and other pumps in the CENTRILIFT Pump Line, it is referred to the Baker Hughes website.
25,1 m
143
NTNU, June 2007
144

Artificial Water Lift Methods for Accelerated Gas Production

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

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

Artificial Water Lift Methods for Accelerated Gas Production

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

ARTIFICIAL WATER LIFT AT STATFJORD

A case study of offshore artificial lift methods

Trondheim June 2007

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord

NTNU, June 2007

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord

NTNU, June 2007

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord

NTNU, June 2007

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord

NTNU, June 2007

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord

NTNU, June 2007

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord

NTNU, June 2007

2. Artificial Lift Literature Survey

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord

NTNU, June 2007

2.2 Comparison of offshore-applicable artificial lift methods

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord

NTNU, June 2007

2.3 Jet Pump principles

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord

NTNU, June 2007

2.4 Gas lift principles

2.5 ESP principles

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord

NTNU, June 2007

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord

NTNU, June 2007

3. The Statfjord Field

3.1 Field overview

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord

NTNU, June 2007

Figure 9 shows a stratigraphic column for the formations.

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord

NTNU, June 2007

3.2 Presentation of the planned re-development of Statfjord

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord

NTNU, June 2007

3.3 Pumping of water to accelerate pressure drawdown

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord

NTNU, June 2007

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord

NTNU, June 2007

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord

NTNU, June 2007

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord

NTNU, June 2007

5. Application of Jet Pump

mint ake mnozzle

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord

NTNU, June 2007

The model uses a functional form of N

f (M ) that is based on work by Cunningham (1974),

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord

NTNU, June 2007

( AWR ) 0.63 R 0.33

Artificial Water Lift at Statfjord

NTNU, June 2007

5.2 Jet Pump performance

5.2.2 Jet Pump sizing