1 / 21

Production Optimization: Factors affecting cV ESP

Production Optimization: Factors affecting cV ESP. Michael Diaz SPE-UTT-SC. Presentation Outline. Objectives GL and ESP Technology Case Study: UTT Oil Field Production Comparison: GL to ESP Evaluation / Conclusion: Factors affecting candidate choice. Objectives. Production Optimization

ziya
Télécharger la présentation

Production Optimization: Factors affecting cV ESP

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Production Optimization: Factors affecting cV ESP Michael Diaz SPE-UTT-SC

  2. Presentation Outline • Objectives • GL and ESP Technology • Case Study: UTT Oil Field • Production Comparison: GL to ESP • Evaluation / Conclusion: Factors affecting candidate choice

  3. Objectives • Production Optimization • Identify potential horizontal candidates for Cv ESP • Identify factors affecting candidate choice

  4. Technology: Gas Lift • Pressurized Gas injected downhole via annulus • Gas enters tubing via GL valves in SPM • Injection: continuous or intermittent

  5. Technology: Gas Lift • Fluid density and hydrostatic back -pressure on formation reduced • Fluids are lifted to the surface, formation fluids enter wellbore

  6. Technology: Electrical Submersible Pumping (ESP) • Electricity: supplied to downhole electric motor (via cables on tubing) • Down hole motor actuated, Pump driven • Pump imparts hydraulic power/energy to fluid • Fluid is lifted to surface

  7. Pump GH Gas Separator ESP: Dealing with down-hole Gas Problems Gas separation Vortex Separator Rotary Separator Gas Handling / Avoidance Centrifugal Gas Handlers Shrouds Bottom Feeder Intakes

  8. UTT Field - Location UTT FIELD

  9. UTT Field • No. Of Wells: 103 Active: 85 Inactive: 18 • Platforms: PL-1, PL-2, PL-3, PL-4, BS-A, BS-B • Current Production: Gross: 29,508 bfpd Oil: 13,573 bopd W/C: ~54% • Production Method: Flowing: 21% Gas Lift: 65% Pumping [PCP]: 14%

  10. M-51: 3 ½” Gas Lift System • Inj. Rate: 0.362 mmscf/d • Current Rate: 447 bopd • W/C: 0.2% • Res: 850 psia, 140 deg.F • Model: Distributed PI: 0.003 STB/d/psi/ft • API: 15.9 º • GOR: 591 scf/stb

  11. M-55: 2 7/8” Gas Lift System • Inj Rate: 0.953 mmscf/d • Current Rate: 24 bopd • Gross:1207 bfpd • W/C: 98% • Res.: 850 psia. 143 deg.F • Model: Distributed PI: 0.003 STB/d/psi/ft • API: 18º • GOR: 6600 scf/stb

  12. ESP DESIGN NOTE: All initial Pump Design Parameters are suggested by SLB-PipeSim Software

  13. M-51 ESP Design • Pump Selected: Centrilift FC1200 • Pump Power Req.: 35.3hp • Efficiency: 64.57% • No. of Stages: 120 • Speed utilized: 60 Hz (3500rpm) (for optimum performance) • Motor: 552_Series

  14. M-55:ESP Design • Pump Selected: Centrilift E127 • Pump Power Req.: 93.4 hp • Efficiency: 72.8% • No. of Stages: 64 • Speed utilized: 60 Hz • Motor: 544_Series

  15. Production Optimization Summary

  16. Economic Considerations • Cost: Pumps, re-completion, installation and operation • Electric Power System: Already installed on Platforms • Previously injected gas: Now Sales Gas • Injection costs: Eradicated • Surplus oil: To be Sold • Pay-back and NPV: Good • Uncertainty: Accounted for

  17. Analysis For M-51, M-52, M-53, M-54 INEFFICIENT PUMP MOTOR COOLING Reasons: • Fluid velocity passing pump motor: V < 1ft per sec • Low W/C: 0.2-1.3 % • High Viscosity, Low API

  18. Analysis M-55: • Pump motor cooling is possible…but…. • Large water producer • “Fluid Override” with large drawdown

  19. Conclusions from Initial Investigation • No candidate selected • Pump performance affected by: high viscosity, low API and high GOR • Ideal: High Gross wells with sufficient water (>20% WC) • Evaluate: Other Well Optimization Method

  20. Factors to consider in cV ESP • Water cut • GOR • API • Viscosity • Sand Production with higher drawdown • Availability of sufficient Electric Power • Reservoir producibility and stability • Economic Feasibility

More Related