eni s.p.a. upstream & technical services

Transcription

1 eni s.p.a. upstream & technical services Master in Petroleum Engineering and Operations Sucker Rod Pumping Systems Beam Pumping Unit vs Long Stroke Author: Alessandro Luciani

2 Master in Petr.Engineering & Operations Stage Subject Sucker rod pumping system: Beam Pumping Unit vs Long Stroke Author Alessandro Luciani Company Tutors Paolo Giunta Lorenzo Corti Division eni S.p.A. Dept. COMP Upstream & Technical Services University Tutor Prof. Francesca Verga services 2

3 List of Content Stage Subject Sucker rod pumping system: Beam Pumping Unit vs Long Stroke Introduction Project scope Technology Description Candidates Selection Technical and Economical Comparison Recommendations and Conclusions services 3

4 Introduction Artificial Lift Market Share (basedon $) Gas Lift 4% Plunger 4% Hydraulic 2% Other 6% PCP 8% Sucker Rod 18% ESP 58% Source: Weatherford services 4

5 Introduction Sucker Rod System Overview services 5

6 Introduction Conventional Beam Pumping Unit services 6

7 Introduction Electro-Mechanical Long-Stroke Unit Hydraulic Long-Stroke Unit services 7

8 Introduction Sucker Rod System Typical Range Operating Depth Operating Volume 100 to ft TVD 5 to 1500 BPD Operating Temperature 100 to 350 F Wellbore deviation Corrosion Handling Gas Handling Solids Handling API Gravity Servicing Prime mover Type Offshore Application 0 to 20 Landed Pump Good to Excellent with Upgraded materials Fair to Good Fair to Good Low - Medium Workover or Pulling Rig Gas, Diesel or Electric Motor Mainly Limited by Weight and Foot-Print System Efficiency 45 to 60 % services 8

9 List of Content Stage Subject Sucker rod pumping system: Beam Pumping Unit vs Long Stroke Introduction Project Scope Technology Description Candidates Selection Technical and Economical Comparison Recommendations and Conclusions services 9

10 Project Scope To perform a technical and economical comparison of beam pump vs long stroke To develop suitable methodology that considers key indicators for the comparison (technical, reliability, logistic and environmental and economical parameters) services 10

11 Project Scope Project Workflow Candidates Selection Beam Pump & Long Stroke Designs Technical & Economical Comparison Recommendations and Conclusions services 11

12 Project Scope Main Parameters Technical Parameters Reliability Parameters (Rod String) Logistic & Environmental Parameters Economical Parameters Tubing Size [in] Plunger Size [in] Rodstring Stroke [in] Pumping Speed [SPM] Number of Cycles per year [x10 6 Strokes] Calculated Horse Power[HP] System Efficiency [Motor to Pump] [%] PPRL [lbs] Peak Gearbox Torque [x10 3 in-lbs] Unit Selection Estimated failures rate [failures/year] Number of failures over 10 years Expected run-life [years] Dimensions [m] Foot-print [m 2 ] Weight [t] OPEX over 10 years (Power Consumption Cost + Workovers Cost+ Maintenance Cost) [x10 6 ] CAPEX [x10 6 ] Total Cost [x10 6 ] RodStar Software Design services 12

13 List of Content Stage Subject Sucker rod pumping system: Beam Pumping Unit vs Long Stroke Introduction Project Scope Technology description Candidates Selection Technical and Economical Comparison Recommendations and Conclusions services 13

14 Technology Description Conventional Beam Pumping Unit Features Totally Mechanical Unit Low-Medium Rates Reduced Stroke Stroke variation limited Leverage System Only On-shore application API Unit Designation C-XXX-XXX-XXX C : Conventional Unit XXX: Peak Torque Rating Gear Reducer XXX: Maximum Structure Capacity XXX: Maximum Stroke Length Available services 14

15 Electro-Mechanical Long Stroke Technology Description Features High Loads & Rates Long Stroke Continous stroke variation without stop production Pumping speed variation in Upstroke and Downstroke to optimize the production Remote control On-shore Application Limitations:Off-shore Application services 15

16 Technology Description Hydraulic Long Stroke API Unit Designation H-XXX-XXX Features Directly installed on Well Head Low-Medium Loads & Medium Flow Rates Long Stroke Continous stroke variation without stop production Pumping speed variation in Upstroke and Downstroke to optimize the production Remote control On-shore/Off-shore Application H: Hydraulic Unit XXX: Maximum Structure Capacity XXX: Maximum Stroke Length Available services 16

17 List of Content Stage Subject Sucker rod pumping system: Beam Pumping Unit vs Long Stroke Introduction Project Scope Technology Description Candidates Selection Technical and Economical Comparison Recommendations and Conclusions services 17

18 Candidates selection Oil field #1: land wells producing with sucker rod pumping Well Selection: based on average field and well parameters and not related to specific well 3 well typologies selected Well Parameters Gross Rate [bbl/d] Field Parameters Static BHT [ F] 154 Static BHP [psi] 1450 Reservoir Depth [ft] 3810 Oil rc [ API] Oil rc [cp] Well A Well B Well C WC [%] PI [stb/d/psi] 1,5 12,4 23,2 services

19 List of Content Stage Subject Sucker rod pumping system: Beam Pumping Unit vs Linear Pump Introduction Project Scope Technology Description Candidates Selection Technical and Economical Comparison Recommendations and Conclusions services 19

20 Technical Indicators Technical and Economical Comparison Well A (Target 200 bfpd) System Design Electro-Mechanical Long Conventional Hydraulic Long Stroke Stroke Tubing Size [in] 2 7/8 2 7/8 2 7/8 Plunger Size [in] 2,25 2,25 2,25 Stroke [in] Rod String Pumping Speed [SPM] 3,26 1,55 1,18 Number of Cycles per year [x10 6 Strokes] Calculated Horse Power [HP] 1,71 0,81 0, System Efficiency [%] PPRL [lbs] Peak Gearbox Torque [x10 3 in-lbs] API UNIT DESIGNATION C R H services 20

21 Technical Indicators Technical and Economical Comparison Well B (Target 400 bfpd) System Design Electro-Mechanical Long Conventional Hydraulic Long Stroke Stroke Tubing Size [in] 2 7/8 2 7/8 2 7/8 Plunger Size [in] 2,25 2,25 2,25 Stroke [in] Rod String Pumping Speed [SPM] 5,32 3 2,15 Number of Cycles per year [x10 6 Strokes] Calculated Horse Power [HP] 2,80 1,58 1, System Efficiency [%] PPRL [lbs] Peak Gearbox Torque [x10 3 in-lbs] API UNIT DESIGNATION C R H services 21

22 Technical Indicators Technical and Economical Comparison Well C (Target 800 bfpd) System Design Electro-Mechanical Long Conventional Hydraulic Long Stroke Stroke Tubing Size [in] 3 1/2 3 1/2 3 1/2 Plunger Size [in] 2,75 2,75 2,75 Stroke [in] Rod String Pumping Speed [SPM] 6,55 3,95 3,19 Number of Cycles per year [x10 6 Strokes] Calculated Horse Power [HP] 3,44 2,1 1, System Efficiency [%] PPRL [lbs] Peak Gearbox Torque [x10 3 in-lbs] API UNIT DESIGNATION C R H services 22

23 Technical and Economical Comparison Reliability Parameters (Rod String) Well A (Target 200 bfpd) Conventional Electro- Mechanical Long Stroke Hydraulic Long Stroke Stroke [in] Pumping Speed [SPM] Estimated failures rate [failures/year] Number of failures over 10 years Expected run-life [years] 3,26 1,55 1,18 0,171 0,081 0,062 1,7 0,8 0, services 23

24 Technical and Economical Comparison Reliability Parameters (Rod String) Well B (Target 400 bfpd) Conventional Electro- Mechanical Long Stroke Hydraulic Long Stroke Stroke [in] Pumping Speed [SPM] Estimated failures rate [failures/year] Number of failures over 10 years Expected run-life [years] 5,32 3 2,15 0,280 0,158 0,1214 2,8 1,6 1, services 24

25 Technical and Economical Comparison Reliability Parameters (Rod String) Well C (Target 800 bfpd) Conventional Electro- Mechanical Long Stroke Hydraulic Long Stroke Stroke [in] Pumping Speed [SPM] Estimated failures rate [failures/year] Number of failures over 10 years Expected run-life [years] 6,55 3,95 3,19 0,344 0,208 0,1677 3,4 2,1 1, services 25

26 Technical and Economical Comparison Logistic & Environmental Parameters Well A (Target 200 bfpd) Conventional Electro- Mechanical Long Stroke Hydraulic Long Stroke Unit Lenght[m] 11,4 6,1 3,1 Unit Width [m] 2,3 2,1 1,8 Height [m] 6,5 11,8 21 Foot-print (LxW)[m 2 ] 26,22 12,81 5,58 Weight [t] 25 16,5 2,8 Long Stroke: Power Unit and Variable Speed Control System services 26

27 Technical and Economical Comparison Logistic & Environmental Parameters Well B (Target 400 bfpd) Conventional Electro- Mechanical Long Stroke Hydraulic Long Stroke Unit Lenght[m] 13,37 6,1 3,1 Unit Width [m] 2,6 2,1 1,8 Height [m] 7,1 11,8 21 Foot-print (LxW)[m 2 ] 34,76 12,81 5,58 Weight [t] 31,7 16,5 2,8 Long Stroke: Power Unit and Variable Speed Control System services 27

28 Technical and Economical Comparison Logistic & Environmental Parameters Well C (Target 800 bfpd) Conventional Electro- Mechanical Long Stroke Hydraulic Long Stroke Unit Lenght[m] 11,9 6,6 3,1 Unit Width [m] 2,7 2,3 1,8 Height [m] 8 12,28 21 Foot-print (LxW)[m 2 ] 32,13 15,18 5,58 Weight [t] 32,6 19,5 2,8 Long Stroke: Power Unit and Variable Speed Control System services 28

29 Weight [ton] Height [m] Technical and Economical Comparison Logistic & Environmental Impact Comparison: Weight Conventional Electro-Mechanical Long Stroke Hydraulic Long Stroke Well B Logistic & Environmental Impact Comparison: Height Conventional Electro-Mechanical Long Stroke Hydraulic Long Stroke Well B WELL B (Target 400 bfpd) Foot-Print [m 2 ] services Logistic & Environmental Impact Comparison: Foot-Print Conventional Electro-Mechanical Long Stroke Hydraulic Long Stroke Well B Conventional Unit: On-shore application No Off-shore application Electromechanical Long Stroke: On-shore application Limitations: Off-shore application Hydraulic Long Stroke: On-shore/Off-shore application

30 Technical and Economical Comparison Technical Comparison Pumping Speed 7 Conventional Electro-Mechanical Long Stroke Hydraulic Long Stroke 6 Pumping Speed[SPM] Fluid production[bfpd] Longer Stroke Lower Pumping Speed services 30

31 Peak Polished Rod Load [lbs] Technical and Economical Comparison Technical Comparison Peak Polished Rod Load Conventional Electro-Mechanical Long Stroke Hydraulic Long Stroke Fluid production[bfpd] Long Stroke: Lower Pumping Speed & Optimized velocity Lower Peak Polished Rod Load services 31

32 Technical and Economical Comparison Technical Comparison System efficiency [Motor to Pump] 55 Conventional Electro-Mechanical Long Stroke Hydraulic Long Stroke System Efficiency [%] Fluid production[bfpd] Long Stroke: Lower Peak Polished Rod Load & Higher Volumetric Efficiency OPEX reduction services 32

33 Technical and Economical Comparison Technical Comparison Calculated Horse Power 60 Conventional Electro-Mechanical Long Stroke Hydraulic Long Stroke Computed Horse Power [HP] Fluid production[bfpd] Long Stroke:Lower Peak Polished Rod Load & Higher Efficiency Lower Horse Power services 33

34 Technical and Economical Comparison Economical Comparison CAPEX 0.3 Conventional Electro-Mechanical Long Stroke Hydraulic Long Stroke 0.25 CAPEX [x10 6 ] Fluid production[bfpd] Conventional: Totally Mechanical Unit Long Stroke: Electrically or Hydraulically powered with variable speed controller services 34

35 OPEX over 10 years [x10 6 ] Technical and Economical Comparison Economical Comparison OPEX over 10 years (Power Consumption Cost + WorkoversCost + Maintenance Cost) Conventional Electro-Mechanical Long Stroke Hydraulic Long Stroke Unit Fluid production[bfpd] Lower Power Consumption Cost Lower Workovers Cost Lower Maintenance Cost Horse Power Rod String life Planned Maintenance & Spare Parts services 35

36 Technical and Economical Comparison Economical Comparison Total Cost 0.70 Conventional Electro-Mechanical Long Stroke Hydraulic Long Stroke 0.60 Total Cost [x10 6 ] Fluid production[bfpd] Low Flow Rate: Conventional High Flow Rate: Long Stroke services 36

37 Technical and Economical Comparison Economical Comparison Total Cost Total Cost [x10 6 ] Conventional Electro-Mechanical Long Stroke Hydraulic Long Stroke Lineare (Electro-Mechanical Long Stroke) Lineare (Hydraulic Long Stroke) Fluid production[bfpd] Low Flow Rate: Conventional Medium Flow Rate: Hydraulic Long Stroke Higher Flow Rates & High Loads: Electro-Mechanical Long Stroke services 37

38 List of Content Stage Subject Sucker rod pumping system: Beam Pumping Unit vs Long Stroke Introduction Project Scope Technology Description Candidates Selection Technical and Economical Comparison Recommendations and Conclusions services 38

39 Recommendations and Conclusions Conventional Suitable for Low Flow Rates On-shore Limitations Weight and Foot-print Hydraulic Suitable for Low-Medium Loads & Medium Flow Rates On-shore Off-shore Limitations Structural Capacity Electro-mechanical Suitable for High Flow Rates & High Loads (Viscous Oil) On-shore Limitations Weight and Foot-print services 39

40 Conclusions Recommendations and Conclusions The long-stroke unit advantages from literature are confirmed by this project Development of a suitable methodology for sucker rod surface unit selection in new projects Methodology effectiveness needs to be calibrated when field data as relevant feedback will be available services 40

41 Acknowledgements I would thank Eni s.p.a. Upstream & Technical Services Division Management for permission to present this work and related results and COMP colleagues for the technical support and needed assistance. Questions? services 41