Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Regardless of
the source or nature of gas inclusions in the flowstream* problems can occur
when the gas reaches the ESP. Recent experience has revealed that selecting
the most appropriate gas handling solution is not a simple task. The reason is
that gas inclusions can manifest themselves in many ways from massive
slugs to entrained bubbles* at a broad spectrum of flow rates and pressures.
Different well geometries and completion styles may affect the way gas flows
or agglomerates in the flowstream. Accordingly* each situation must be
evaluated on its own merit.
Because the gas flow regime can be variable* real-time monitoring of flow*
pressure and temperatures provide valuable information in deciding the best
method of gas handling* but it also has significant long-term benefits in
detecting changes in the operation that could lead to premature pump
failure.
ESPs generally have a low tolerance for gas* usually no more than 10% to
20% gas volume fraction (GVF). Because ESPs rely on centrifugal force to
move fluid* generally radial or a combination of radial and axial* high- and
low-pressure areas are created in the pump stage vanes as they rotate. As
gas enters the pump* the lighter gas phase will slip apart from the heavier
fluid phase and accumulate on the low pressure side of the blade until it
finally blocks the passage of the entire vane/vanes in the pump stage (Figure
1).
In this way* as gas enters the intake stage of an ESP* it will eventually cause
the pump to gas lock. Surface equipment used while producing the well can
help alleviate this problem. In the case of a switchboard application fixed
speed the options are limited. However* in a variable speed drive (VSD)*
the speed of the pump can be changed as the pump load varies due to gas
slugging* thus allowing the pump to ride through the slug. In the case
discussed later in this article* the VSD was set up in current mode where the
drive followed a preset current point to track the operation of the pump in
lieu of just shutting the system down. The use of a VSD has its limitations as
well. If the GVF is high enough* it will eventually lead to a gas locking
condition. When this happens* the flow of liquid stops and the result is a
sharp increase in motor winding temperature and a sharp decrease in load
on the motor. If the temperature spike is not detected and steps are not
taken to immediately remediate it* the ESP can be destroyed. If the flow
regime includes gas slugging* the damage can be even more precipitous
(Figure 2).
Dealing with gas
Over the years* operators and their service partners have developed
methods to deal with gas in pumping wells. These techniques vary from
simple to sophisticated. In some cases* the system can be equipped with a
shroud that displaces the pump assembly intake point down below the
source of gas influx (usually the perforations). Free gas entering the well will
experience simple gravity separation and bubble up into the annulus*
allowing the liquid phase to enter into the shroud and flow up to the ESP
intake.
This technique is called gas avoidance* as the shroud minimizes the amount
of gas reaching the pumps intake altogether. In deviated wells* gas entry
can be avoided by using a weighted self-orienting intake that always draws
from the low side of the casing* thus avoiding gas flow that is percolating up
the high side due to gravity separation (Figure 3).
In some cases* gas can be separated in advance of the pump intake either
by forcing all production to take a tortuous path to the intake ports or by
creating a vortex in the flow stream. For higher GVFs* various rotary
techniques can be employed. These add energy to the flowstream to
stimulate the separation process. Centrifugal separators assist in separating
the gas from the liquid and disperse the gas through discharge ports into the
casing to be produced up the annulus.
Advanced gas handlers (AGH) operate on the principle of homogenizing the
produced mixture as it is being passed through the pump* allowing for
increased GVF to be handled in a way that surpasses the effectiveness of the
centrifugal separator. The AGH homogenizes the gas and liquid phases*
compresses a portion of the gas back into solution and induces a gas lift
effect in the tubing above the pump. This enables the pump to produce the
mixture with a limit of approximately 45% GVF without gas locking* reducing
the load on the pump and improving its overall lifting efficiency.
The most effective technique* in terms of gas handling* employs axial flow
technology* which has the capacity to effectively handle GVFs up to 75%.
Developed jointly by Institut Franais du Ptrole (IFP)* Total* and Statoil* the
production rates varying from 100 b/d to 2000 b/d. Gas/liquid ratios (GLR)
varied as well from as little as 150 scf/stb to 15*000 scf/stb. Clearly* a onesize-fits-all solution was inappropriate each well had to be evaluated
individually and the optimum solution identified. Wells experienced frequent
gas-locking* resulting in lost revenue and production interruptions
Shutdowns were also experienced because of power outages or surges
resulting in field failures. In addition* start up was difficult and getting the
well stabilized was even more of a challenge.
Read more: http://www.egpet.net/vb/threads/47503-Electric-submersible-pumps-fine-tunedfor-gassy-wells#ixzz4U59uUwnB
INTRODUCTION
Static and producing bottom hole pressures are important parameters for
investigating the inflow and vertical lift performances of an oil well. There are
different methods which can be used for determining bottom hole pressures of
electric submersible pumped (ESP) wells:
1) Conventional pressure bomb: used if the ESP completion is equipped with Ytool (by-pass system)* usually the Y-tool is not used due to it's required large
casing (not less than 9 5/8")* and the Y-tool plug can cause leakage and/or
stuck. Generally* this method requires the following steps:
a. Switch-off the ESP*
b. Retrieve the plug of the Y-tool*
c. Install the pressure bomb at the bottom hole of the well*
d. Install the plug of the Y-tool above the pressure bomb*
e. Re-run the ESP and operate it for enough time*
f. Switch-off the ESP*
g. Retrieve the plug of the Y-tool*
h. Retrieve the pressure bomb*
It is clear enough* at this point* that the previously described method of BHFP
measurement takes more time and it is economically infeasible (loss in oil
production due to shut-in times). In addition* many expected problems may
occur due to many wire-line jobs (six runs).
2) Pressure sensors: which may be installed with the down-hole pump assembly
so that accurate pressure readings may be obtained whenever required* but the
cost would be high if they were used in every pumped well in a field or area.
3) Acoustic well sounding technique: which records fluid level in the annulus*
the bottom hole pressures are usually determined by this method. But this
method can not be used if the annulus is to be packed off (a packer used).
Gibbs and Nolen3 and Podio et al4 introduced a well Analyzer's computer and
A/D converter* that can be used in conjunction with an acoustic gas gun and
microphone. The gas gun generates an acoustic pulse in the well-bore and the
microphone converts the reflected acoustic pressure pulses to electrical signals*
which are digitized by the analog to digital A/D converter and stored in the
computer. The computer displays these signals and processes the data as
introduced by software to automatically determine fluid level depth. To calculate
the producing bottom-hole pressure* the casing pressure is measured at the
time of fluid level determination. When liquid is present above the formation
and gas is flowing upward in the casing annulus* the casing vent valve is closed
and sequential measurements of casing-head pressure are made for
approximately 10-15 minutes so that an accurate casing pressure build-up rate
can be obtained. The program uses this rate and the annulus void volume to
calculate the casing annulus gas flow rate. This allows determination of the
gaseous liquid column gradient from empirical correlations. It is noted that the
tubing joints should have the same length because the depth to the fluid level is
computed by estimating the total number of collars from the surface to the fluid
level.
The head (in feet per stage) developed by a centrifugal pump is the same
regardless of the type or specific gravity of the fluid pumped. But when
converting this head to pressure* it must be multiplied by the gradient of the
fluid in question. Therefore* the following can be stated7:
The total fluid rate (liquid plus gas) at any conditions of pressure and
temperature is* then:
(2)
When pumping gas with the liquid* the capacity and* consequently* the head
per stage as well as the gradient vary as the pressure of the fluid is elevated
from the intake value PIP to the discharge value Pdis. Thus* the above equation
can be written as follows:
(3)
Note that parentheses are included to indicate that h and Gf are functions of the
capacity V* which is given by Equation 2.
The gradient of the fluid at any pressure and temperature is given by:
(4)
but*
(5)
(7)
fsc is the weight of 1 bbl of liquid plus pumped gas (per 1 bbl of liquid) at
standard conditions* or:
(8)
(9)
(10)
or:
(11)
For each pump* there is a capacity range within which the pump performs at or
near its peak efficiency (see Figure 1). The volume range of the selected rate
between the intake and the discharge pressures should remain within the
efficiency range of the pump. This range* of course* can be changed by using a
variable frequency controller.
Calculating head per stage for submersible pumps is based on the head
coefficients (as shown in Table 1) and the volume of the production rate as
follows:
(12)
The production rate for submersible pumps is considered for two cases:
pumping liquid only and pumping liquid & gas.
The head per stage which calculated from Equation 12 is based on fresh water.
Then* the head per stage for viscous liquid need to the following:
(15)
(16)
Where Cq & Ch are viscosity correction factors for capacity & head respectively*
as shown in Table 2.
The head per stage (calculated from Equation 12) is based on 60 hertz motor
frequency. Then* if the motor frequency is more or less than 60 hertz* the head
per stage for this frequency need to the following:
The total dynamic head developed by the pump is considered for two cases:
pumping liquid only and pumping liquid & gas.
For liquid only* the head per stage is constant for all stages. Therefore* the
total head given by:
(19)
For liquid and gas* the head per stage is changing from stage to stage.
Therefore* the total head given by:
(20)
In case of pumping liquid and gas* the head per stage changes from stage to
stage because the pressure changes from stage to stage* which may affect the
production rate (volume capacity ) from stage to stage. The pressure at the last
stage is equal to the discharge pressure of the pump:
(21)
Where the discharge pressure of the pump can be calculated from the twophase flow correlations.
The pressure at the stage before the last stage is equal to the pressure at the
last stage minus the pressure developed by the last stage* and so on:
(22)
(23)
Finally* the pressure at the first stage is equal to the pressure at the second
stage minus the pressure developed by the second stage:
(24)
.
Reply
Thanks
Sponsored Links
ali
Active Member
Join Date
Apr 2007
Posts
218
Blog Entries
1
Thanks
10
Thanked 35 Times in 20 Posts
Calculating pressure per stage for submersible pumps is based on the head per
stage and the average specific gravity of the liquid:
(25)
where:
(26)
The total pressure developed by the pump is considered for two cases: pumping
liquid only and pumping liquid and gas.
For liquid only* the pressure per stage is constant for all stages. Therefore* the
total pressure given by:
(27)
For liquid and gas* the pressure per stage is changing from stage to stage.
Therefore* the total pressure is given by:
(28)
(29)
The dynamic fluid level in the well annulus can be determined as the following:
(30)
(31)
(32)
Where :
C = 100 for old pipe
= 120 for new pipe
= 150 for plastic pipe
The net liquid above the pump can be determined as the following:
(33)
.
Recent Threads by ali :
Reply
ali
Active Member
Thanks
Join Date
Apr 2007
Posts
218
Blog Entries
1
Thanks
10
Thanked 35 Times in 20 Posts
The new developed method is applied and the designed VISUAL BASIC
computer program is used to calculate BHFP* PIP* DFL* and NLAP.
The required data to calculate the PIP* BHFP* DFL & NLAP showed in Tables 3*
4 & 5. The well bore data showed in Table 3 * The down-hole pump data
showed in Table 4* and the production data showed in Table 5.
The Echometer surveys results from actual producing ESP wells showed in Table
6* these wells were selected from the Western Desert area of Egypt covering a
wide range of a variations in their reservoirs* fluid properties* and ESP
assembly.
(34)
The results indicate that* the absolute error percent between the measured and
calculated values of DFL* NLAP* PIP & BHFP is not more than 10%.
CONCLUSIONS
The pump intake pressure (PIP)* the bottom hole flowing pressure (BHFP)* the
dynamic fluid level (DFL)* and net liquid above pump (NLAP) in annulus for
Electric submersible pumped (ESP) wells can be determined accurately by the
developed method using the production and completion data.
The VISUAL BASIC computer language was used to design a computer program
for an easy use.
Comparing the results obtained by the new method and the measured values of
pump intake pressure (PIP)* bottom hole flowing pressure (BHFP)* dynamic
fluid level (DFL) and net liquid above pump (NLAP) indicated a good agreement
and shows that the new method is reliable and dependable to be used.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to express their sincere thanks and appreciation to the
Petroleum Engineering Department* Suez Canal University* for encouragement
to publish this paper* and for the staff of the Khalda Petroleum Company (KPC)
for their cooperation and providing field data.
NOMENCLATURE
Symbols
REFERENCES
2. Beggs* H. D.* and Brill* J. P.: A Study of Two-Phase Flow in Inclined Pipes*
JPT* 607-617* May 1973.
4. Podio* A. L.* McCoy* J. N.* and Dieter Becker: "Integrated Well Performance
and Analysis*" SPE 24060* Western Regional Meeting* Bakersfield* California*
March 30 April 1* 1992.
22 April 1999.
7. Brown* K. E.* et al.: The Technology of Artificial Lift Methods* Vol 2b.
Chapter 4. Tulsa* Oklahoma: The Petroleum Publishing Co.* 1980.
Read more: http://www.egpet.net/vb/threads/50249-Production-Data-Analysis-for-ElectricSubmersible-Pumped-%28ESP%29-Wells#ixzz4U5AK582I